David G. Healy

John wrote:

David, I should have elaborated a bit. The older person is more likely (just likely not necessarily, so I think this is posssibly the weakest suggestion) to have various vertebraes 'frozen' and/or the lubricated 'pad' in between the vertebres degraded/damaged with lubrication supply degraded. It's just a fact of life. So a turn of the head in the horizontal plane could be easier than a combined turn and dip/rise. For everyone though, I think if one tries one can see, it's two separate movements coinciding, with the dip/rise more 'jerky'.

while your eye is in the viewfinder: turn your body from waist up [pan] lift your arms [tilt] -- simple as pie

I think I understand your correction re tilting. Thank you.

Could you elaborate on why a natural looking movie would be easier to artificially create, please.

a film produced using a handheld camera translates to camera motion [cinema verte]

quote on

[Wikepedia]

Cinéma vérité aims for an extreme naturalism, using non-professional actors, nonintrusive filming techniques, hand-held camera, genuine locations rather than sound stages, and naturalistic sound without post-production or voiceovers. The movement was fueled as much by technological as artistic developments. During World War II, cameras had become small enough to be portable and unobtrusive. Even more important, cameras were now quiet so that natural sound could be recorded at the same time as filming.

As Bill Nichols points out, the reality effect of a new mode of documentary representation tends to fade away when "the conventional nature of this mode of representation becomes increasingly apparent". In other words, new modes initially appear to be true, unvarnished "reality" on the screen, but as time goes by that mode's conventions become more and more obvious. Such is certainly the case with cinéma vérité whose conventions can now appear quite mannered and open for critique.

quote off

edits/optical printing can be covered or understood as amateur camera work

Just a little something to think about

Yes, they did damage the film. No excuses for leaving that out. Thank you.

'John Dolva' wrote:

[...]

Some thoughts and suggestions...

Some macrofeatures of the zfilm that to me indicates that the zfilm as we have it today is genuine.

I'm not talking of those short and long versions where individual frames are dropped, nor about the basis for this panorama which is one of the main versions which is known to be altered by so called 'distorion correction' and 'cleaning', nor about color etc 'enhancement', but about the overall structure of the film.

It was taken with a movie camera where the viewer and the film had separate lenses. So when the camera was filming something far off the viewer and the film were looking at the same thing. As the object filmed was closer to the camera the viewer focused on the Limo but beacause of a compensating feature the film was filming an area above this.

dgh01: Basically AZapruders pan/framing down Elm Street was good. You raise a valid point regarding the framing being off when the limo was approaching directly in front of him. This also can be achieved in optical film printing

The camera was being operated by an amateur who didn't consider the dip would mean a continual drift in the verttical that was there fore not planned for and compensated for smoothly.

dgh01: again, this would make defect in the panning would make film alteration much easier

The camera was being operated by a middle aged/elderly person. A smooth diagonal pan is less easy to achieve by an older person.

dgh01: what? Older person? The camera weighed less than 4 pounds, loaded, he also had somebody providing support...

The pan as the camera must be lowered in order to keep on the limo is across down across down.

dgh01: yes

...as the limo draws near and goes down the street the camera must be raised as the limo goes towards the underpass. The pan becomes across up across up, to the end where the limo is once again centered.

dgh01: a pan is across left-to-right or right-to-left and vertical movement of the camera is called a "tilt, either up or down -- so what your explaining here is panning and tilting at the same time

After the shot the regularity of the pans is broken. An obvious reaction of the camera person.

dgh01: every movement of the camera is a reaction of the camera person. This effect can also be induced by optical film printing techniques

One final thing; Zapruder was a amateur cameraperson, possibly this was the first thing he ever filmed -- we don't have any proof of other film he's shot, we have nothing to compare his DP filming techniques too. Had a pro shot the Zap[ruder pedestal film, I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation -- altering a film with clean pans/tilts would be neigh on impossible. Makes the "splices" in the Z-film much more interesting --

as a added item, LIFE never commented on how the film of the century was mishandled (broken), twice! Nor were responsible LIFE Magazine employee identified...

[...]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

[...]

Duncan - Jack's Zapruder Waltz had already been dead in the water and Debra knew that you were not offering it up because you have new information on it - she knew you were trying to run up forum space by getting the pot stiirred. Here is the link to that thread for those who 'wish to know the truth' as you like to put it

[...]

___________________

Maybe "dead" in the eyes of some, not that I pay much attention to that end of the argument/photo evidence...

The photos comparison has raised a question in my mind; based on Groden's pic, on or off the pedestal -- heights of these folks, front or back, doesn't wash...

Jim Hackett wrote:

[...]

Some people's research is weak so bluster and abusive behavior are used to cover deficiencies in that work and to avoid REAL PEER REVIEW of said work.

Jim

__________

REAL peer review? Interesting post to a internet forum... just how do you determine who the peers are and what makes them peers -- I suspect the one and only primary qualification is, breathing the same air as others?

You been around this stuff as long as a few here have, you'll understand why CT's don't stand for Lone Neuter BS, PERIOD!

How good were the shooters is the questions.

Let's look at it from a shooters perspective.

The shooters were firing on a moving target at varying speeds at varying angles of lateral and horizontal placement. The shooters had to get off their shots and escape undetected (and I will not even address the issue of suppressors). The shooters had to cause as little damage outside of the target as possible (only JFK and Connally were hit).

Were these professionals? You bet your ass. When I term "professionals", I am not referring to Italian or French mobsters. I am talking about professionals in terms of military snipers. I have posted time and again on this here and at Lancer. I have introduced the term "Canyon Shoot" to those outside the military sniper realm. I have talked about gravitational pull issues, panning and recovery of sight alignment after the shot.

I see no need to go into again as the challenges I have received have been from those who have shot stationary fixed targets on a controlled range. Apples and oranges.

Al

Al,

Much appreciated. A concise evaluation of how good the shooters needed to be (from someone with knowledge in this area) was what I was trying to obtain. (although the opinions expressed by others have also been helpful).

So despite the fact that the organisers made every effort to accomodate the shooters, the shooters were required to be among the very best in their field. Probably obvious in light of the importance of their job, but I was curious about this aspect of the assassination. Thanks again.

Might I recommend: ayoob@attglobal.net

Or else search: Massad Ayoob

or else: http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/biblio.html

Ayoob, Massad

The Ayoob Files - The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View

in: American Handgunner, March/April 1993

Gun experts examine a number of issues related to Oswald's MC rifle, his shooting skill, ballistics, and the reaction of Kennedy to the shots. The single-assassin theory is found to be well within the limits of plausibility.

Perhaps Mr. Simkin will approach Massad and see if he will discuss the accuracy; integrity; capability; reliability; operating speed; etc; of the Carcano Rifle.

Then again, Mr. Massad Ayoob may just tell everyone to read and review what he wrote for American Handgunner some 13 years ago.

Tom,

It appears Massad Ayoob has competition out there --

Contrary to some who opine hereabouts on my leanings in this case, I could careless if Oswald (the one arrested in Dallas) is/was invovled as a SHOOTER or, a unwittingly accomplice...

If, as the WCR states, Oswald missed the *first* shot - how'd he deal with the immediate 'unknowables'? IMHO, from what I've read, he just doesn't have the right stuff...

David

I think the whole arguing back and forth about the Z-film or any other photographs/films is a waste of time. I believe that in a court of law the BEST that can be hoped for is a draw over these issues. CT photo/film experts vs. LN photo/film experts=draw in a court case. Factor in that we cant even figure out who our photo/film experts are and you are really talking about a sad state of affairs. Do we really think that a U.S. judge or a jury is going to accept a bunch of fuzzy blobs as evidence?

Waste of time? Perhaps, for some. With or without the Z-film, fuzzy imagery or NOT, had Oswald lived, he'd of been found guilty in 1964! Of that, I have no doubt.

I wouldn't worry about acquiring/finding photo experts. None on this board would be consulted, for either side...IMHO

The question lingers: why was it necessary to eliminate Oswald before he was tried?

Craig,

I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible.

I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point.

Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once.

I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here.

This copy has just been enlarged by Robin.

Alan

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test.

I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.

BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.

"...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what?

So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao!

Well good for you David, I'm so happy for you. Perhaps you can show us a nice film composite image you have made with your 8x10 camera.

You are right..the groundglass tests have nothing to do with resolution tests and EVERYTHING to do with the skill levels of the "experts" on your side of the coin. Laughable is the perfect word.

BTW I placed a nice bowl of table scraps in the your dog house...eat up guard dog.

well thank you very much, when you can afford one we'll mach trannies.... so, ah again; what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Oop's, that's right you answered that didn't you -- NOTHING! Much ado about nothing -- pretty much were all your arguments end up!

But fun to watch none-the-less

Craig,

I don't want to come across as a nit-picker but in one post you asked(& I'm paraphrasing) if figures behind the wall/fence would even be able to be seen in Moormans photo from where she stood & in your next post you stated that this would be impossible.

I point this out to you only because it is of course an important point.

Jack has actually used Marys original camera in the past, to answer this very question & has posted the results more than once.

I hope Jack doesn't mind me posting it here.

This copy has just been enlarged by Robin.

Alan

A wonderful test...problem is it used a film that has over TWICE the resolving power in lp/mm than the polaroid film used by Mary Moorman AND the based on the fact that the camera has only one shutter speed, the len in that test was not stopped down to near the level that was used by Moorman (near f90) which means the test exposure did not suffer from defraction limitations of the moorman image. In other words, a worthless test.

I can't believe all of these so called photo experts have fooled around with trying to use roll film in the Moorman camera, or even more laughable trying to attach a ground glass or acetate to the back of the camera and then taking a picture with a second camera. It's just plain stupid. You simply need to take a lens from a polaroid camera of the same make and model as Moormans and mount in on a view camera. I've done it, I've shot with it on 4x5 polaroid film stock (both 100iso and 3000iso) I KNOW exactly what this lens/film distance can resolve, and testing it with tri-x tells you absolutely nothing.

BTW, I dont think Crawley still stands by the statements in the link you posted.

"...even more laughable..." (?) I've been using a 8x10 Polaroid back on a view camera for 8 years, so what?

So believe what you want and, what does *groundglass* tests have to do with resolving power? Why absolutely nothing... what-a-canard. read up -- roflmao!

Jerry Coley was interviewed by researchers Mark Oakes and Martin Barkley. The filmed version was once available on the Internet somewhere. I'm sure a Google search would track it down.

James

http://users4.ev1.net/~smyers/jfk2/media.html

Thanks, David. I had completely forgotten that material was on Scott Myers' site. I tried to download the interview but was unable to do so. Hopefully it is a temporary problem.

BTW, do you know anything about the material located within the 'Inside the Dealey Plaza Looking Glass' link? There are two photos displayed, the first one bearing a striking similarity to a young D.H. Byrd.

Just curious.

James

Sorry James -- not familiar with the images....

David

Ron, most emphatically, the New Testament does NOT blame the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews.

Anti-Semites interpret it that way and have through the ages.

The Jews were and remain God's chosen people. THAT is what the Bible teaches.

wow, following that logic; if you disagree with the reasons we're in IRAQ, makes you anti-democracy --

who sent Jesus to appear in front of what Roman magistrate, again?

Ron wrote:

[...]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and say only nice things about them.

______________

Not so sure, Rome events re: feeding Roman Christians to the lions would entice the Christians to write nice things about the Romans? Or did I miss your point, satire or otherwise....

Jerry Coley was interviewed by researchers Mark Oakes and Martin Barkley. The filmed version was once available on the Internet somewhere. I'm sure a Google search would track it down.

James

http://users4.ev1.net/~smyers/jfk2/media.html

When an understanding of the intentional confusion of the evidence is accomplished, then the rational and reasons can be derived.

Until then, it is all merely confusion.

One additional question: the yellow *curb* stripes, did Mr. West comment as to what were they for? If not, do you have any idea?

Thanks for the above 3 posts, Tom...

David Healy

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote:

In order to assure that the record and history are correct regarding the integrity and honor of Mr. Robert West*, and that he played no part in the WC lies and coverup of facts of the assassination of JFK, it is my hope that should anyone at any time question the integrity of Mr. West, that they be thereafter referred to this topic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Since many of the CT group has at one time or another attempted to impune the integrity of virtually everyone else, I would expect that sooner or later Mr. West will fall under the umbrella of their claims.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Having corresponded with Mr. West on several occassions, as well as having visited him in his home on at least two separate occassions, there can be little doubt that Mr. West played absolutely no intentional role in the misrepresentation of facts as relates to the survey work in Dealy Plaza, which was directly related to the assassination of JFK.

In Fact, Mr. West fully questioned the work of the WC, and merely "wrote it off" as a bunch of politicians and FBI personnel who did not know what they wanted and/or how to go about achieving it.

In that regard, Mr. West shared many stories about those items which "did not make any sense" during his WC survey/re-enactment work.

As a result of the open, forthright, and honest discussions which Mr. West shared with me, it was quite obvious that he played no part in the WC obfuscation of the facts related to the assassination of JFK.

In fact, Mr. West was quite astonished when I personally presented to him, at him home in Dallas, that information relative to where the WC had "changed" data on his survey work.

He also could not believe that they had gotten away with the manner in which his actual survey was admitted into evidence in a "sealed" envelope without ever being opened and examined.

In that regard, Mr. West, who was now fully retired, shared with me copies of all survey notes and survey plats related the the assassination re-enactments in Dealy Plaza.

To that end, few if any were even aware of the fact that Mr. West had done survey work, as well as having completed a survey plat, for Time/Life Magazine on 11/25/63.

This of course also includes the later work done for the US Secret Service and completed on 12/5/63.

As well as the later work done for the FBI and completed on 2/7/64.

Then there is the work as done for the WC and completed on 6/25/64 in which the impact point for the third/last/final shot has been deleted, yet still contains the impact point for the first and second shots.

Which too was apparantly unacceptable!

And ultimately ended with a "re-drawn" survey plat which now deleted the First Shot, and had a line drawn shortly prior to this shot at "Point A"*, and now showed only impact point for the Z-313 head shot.

dgh: Tom -- does the above square with what we see in the Zapruder camera original, more recently called the MPI DVD piece?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*With this little "slicky boy" move the WC created a large survey plat which showed positions and angles to "Point A", on the map/plat.

Previous survey plats showed lines drawn to the impact point for shot#1, however even that copy of the other survey data as presented into evidence, is reduced to the extent that one can not distinguish between the fact that the SS Plat is drawn to Shot#1 whereas the WC Survey Plat in drawn to "Point A", which was located by the WC shortly prior to impact point for the first shot.

dgh: did Mr. West work with photos provided by the SS/FBI when conducting his Dealey Plaza survey work for same? If so, who provided the photos? And, where those photos part of his submission when he completed the work?

ALL survey work (Time/Life--SS/FBI (1 &2) demonstrate the impact point for shot#1, with the downward angles drawn onto the survey plat.

dgh: Time-Life? when was their DP survey work completed? Were they copied, under seperate cover, the SS/FBI plat work?

The WC made this work disappear and thereafter "blend" in to "Point A"!

In addition, of course, to making shot# 3 impact point disappear as well.

dgh: Referencing current Z-film frame numbers - re Mr. West's plat work for the SS/FBI, that would put the 3rd shot impact point happening around what, Z-355? Closer to the knoll stairs on the north side of Elm...? Course these frame numbers are arbitrary IF the Z-film was altered, further down Elm none-the-less?

Thanks - David Healy

Top Post --

Thanks for posting this, Margret -- nice to see it every now and then ---

______________________

Many people have posted various different theories and ideas on the JFK assassination debate only to find wild replies that attack them personally, ridicule their work and sidetrack the debate totally, leaving the author stunned and confused, wondering why they ventured into a shark pit in the first place.

This appears to be rife on all popular Internet discussions on JFK and there is probably if not certainly a genuine reason why. Government Cointelpro - counter intelligence program.

People who are trained in certain techniques to knowingly destroy theories, ridicule and make others fearful of posting more ideas due to the vehemance of replies. But why would there be such a contigent would be an obvious question and there is an obvious answer tothat. If even one small iota of some of these theories prove to be correct, then like a house of cards, the official line will crumble, and left in the ruins will be the guilty parties with nowhere to hide. High Treason is punishable by the death penalty (the very punshment Bill Miller told me I deserve the first time he posted a response to me) and when the truth does come out over the matter there will be a huge fallout, after all all these castles have been built in sand.

It is big and as more and more people discover truthes throughout the lies and red herrings then there is more and more "sock puppets" running around to putty fill the gaps. This thread is for those genuine people, who are really searching to reveal the truth, some may have read it before but I personally find it is very enlightening when compared to some peoples posting styles.

I will post it here in it's full entirety with author credit as per copyright proceedures. It may help genuine posters understand and deflect the distraction caused by disinformation techniques. I know when I re read this article after stepping into the JFK sharkpit, it certainly opened my eyes to much deviousness.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:

The Rules of Disinformation

(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

by H. Michael Sweeney

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'xxxx's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule

6. Hit and Run

7. Question motives

8. Invoke authority

9. Play Dumb

10. Associate opponent charges with old news

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

12. Enigmas have no solution

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

14. Demand complete solutions

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses

17. Change the subject

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad

19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

20. False evidence

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

22. Manufacture a new truth

23. Create bigger distractions

24. Silence critics

25. Vanish

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance

2. Selectivity

3. Coincidental

4. Teamwork

5. Anti-conspiratorial

6. Artificial Emotions

7. Inconsistent

8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

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.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.'

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

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 as well. 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.

Example: You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months.'

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

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.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'

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.

Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?'

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.

Example: 'This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'

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.

Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?'

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.

Example: 'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?'

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.

Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'

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.

Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?'

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.

Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?'

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 loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?'

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.

Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'

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.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.'

Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'

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.

Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...

Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'

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.'

Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?'

19. Ignore facts 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.

Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?'

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.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?'

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 an 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.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

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.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

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.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

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.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

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.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney

copyright © 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

by H. Michael Sweeney

Snail: PO Box 1941, Clackamas, OR 97015

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site.

'Tim Carroll' wrote:

[...]

After closely studying the Moorman Photo in the course of an exchange about Classic Gunman, I began to feel that I was seeing more images behind the wall. I sought Jack's help with getting "the best quality Moorman photo obtainable." I was surprised to realize that I couldn't intelligently answer his questions: "Which version? There are several. The early Zippo print without the thumbprint? Early wire service prints with pedestal cropped out? Later wire service prints? My copies made from the original? Gordon Smith copy from original, etc. etc. etc.? All are different." So I'm seizing this opportunity for clarification and/or an assist from Bill Miller regarding which version is the purest (perhaps "rawest" would be better, knowing Jack's position about tampering). I also question the thumbprint: how can there be versions without it?

there in lies the major problem regarding DPlaza 11/22/63 imagery. We knew years ago what the Jack's and Gary's of the research world were studying and reviewing (lineage included) These day's with the internet and such, nobody deals the lineage issue....

As for the coke bottle, I'm a bit confused about that issue. Admittedly, I can't see it in the foregoing posts. But if it was at the retaining wall corner in Willis and Betzer, then it must also be within view in Moorman. Correct?

here's that problem again -- to answer your question -- yes, it should be there! However when images are posted nobodys asks for said photo lineage -- A researcher could be working with fine resolution digital .tiff images (Most of JackW early work was with actual FILM stock) -- post a 320x240 .jpeg of same and wallah -- the bottle may be gone due to JPEG compression artifacting--- or worse yet, we got Photoshop cowboys riding the pixel range -- they just cloned where the bottle may of been with surrounding area imagery. Course if that is determined and someones called for that this is what you'll hear; "hey it wasn't me, who knows where that image came from..."

BMiller wrote:

[...]

nor do I think Craig is suggesting that this was the case persay.

[...]

persay? roflmao -- baloney! Follow Lamsons' bouncing ball, if JWhites work re badgeman was a farce, so was GMacks!

Lamson dronned on....

Nice try White too bad its such a poor attempt to save your ignorant butt.

Lets cut right through Whites bs and cut to the chase. He manipulated this image. His contact sheet offers the proof. By increasing EXPOSURE he threw away details until he had a NEW IMAGE that fit his needs.

hmm, where have i heard THIS before?

And thanks for pointing out that this contact sheet is a copy of a slide which is a copy of a print which is a copy of (another print or) the Moorman original. It totally destroys your silly claim that this is "badgeman"!

Does that mean Gary Macks' silly "bageman" claim goes up in smoke? It was Gary and Jack that made the discovery, correcto-mundo, Lamson? You guys need to get your act together

In other words, the details of the original Moorman in this 1/69 of an inch area has been changed beyond repair. IN other words....its notihng near what the orignal Moorman might have shown. Its simply a FABRICATION .

keep going like this and those in the Z-film alteration crowd will allow you to do their work -- LOL

White, its been perfectly clear for many years that you are among the ignorant when it comes to photography. Its a real shame your mis and disinformation has spoiled the minds of so many uninformed folks for so long. You should be ashamed of yourself.

must be time for Lone Neuter gold star handouts... What institution did you say houses your work Craig? I think there's someone in this thread that has had that honor bestowed -- t'aint you

BTW, calculating the proper exposure based on the length of a bellows is a very simply math calculation. Its not difficult at all...FOR AN EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not suprised you found it difficult.

this guys' a hatchet job for the anti-Zfilm alteration MALCONTENT crowd.

Tom wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reference to "altered" does not provide definitive explanation of what is being sought.

Not unlike a good test exam, any question must specifically define the parameters which are sought. IE:

1. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film were omitted from general publication?

a. YES_______

b. NO_______

c. I do not know_______

2. Do you believe that frames from the original Zapruder film have been "trimmed" and thereafter reproduced for presentation to the public?

a. Yes________

b. NO________

c. I do not know______

And so on!

In merely referencing "ALTERATION", many envision the claims of the GURU of film alteration, which have of course taken this subject far beyond the bounds of rationale and reason.

As a final note, there are those who continue to operate under an accepted "general assumption".

That being the assumption that the entire Z-film would have had to be "altered"/re-manufactured utilizing processes that were available only in the early 1960's.

As any serious (& competent researcher) should know, the WC decided that there was nothing past Z334 worth viewing, and therefore did not present any of the frames of the film past this point.

Therefore, it would appear as an unsubstantiated asssumption that portions of the Z-film which were after Z334, have not had considerable time in which various advances in film technology could have aided in some form of "minor" alteration to frames of the film.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Well, have you viewed the films, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I have; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there something special in your viewing of the films which led you to believe that there were more than three shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No: it doesn't point out more than three shots, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Which films are you referring to?

Mr. KELLERMAN. These are the colored ones that were taken on the right side.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for bring up these points, Tom. ALL of them !

Course one has to define "rationale and reason" when it comes to possible Z-film alteration. As Moe Weitzman said in his HSCA testimony; "there are tests that can be performed...

Mere fact that posing possiblity of same, get's more than a few hackles up.

Everyone seems to go to such great lengths to discredit Jim Fetzer.. why is this so? Could it be possible that he has kicked the can and its opened a tin of worms? Could it be that he is right and many many stand to lose big time if even 1 iota of what he says is proven to be correct?

Fetzer's research can be insulted, put down, ridiculed and all other methods of disinformation that has been used but the facts remain. Things don't add up and Fetzer has done a fantastic job in pointing that out.

9/11 doesn't add up either, Fetzers once again done a great job dissecting that one.

when they're needy for solace, the anti-Fetzer crowd loves to gather together, moan and groan about all things Kennedy, hence all thing Democratic -- when it comes to the Zapruder film and possible alteration of same, their noise level increases to the highest of heights... the Lone Neuter obsession with that subject is remarkable.... and they control the film evidence - which makes it astounding...

The mantra the detrators sing is: Maintain the status quo. Questions and Ideas are for the little folks.

In Iraq, apparently we've a rising star, 60+ and he's not the only one...

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue.

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Yes David, I do. At this stage in my learning about it I can say with some certainty that there have been presentations that distort reality by frame rate, frame drops, cropping, 'enhancing', so called 'cleaning' and 'distorion corrections' etc of that nature that has a lot to do with presentation in order to support a preconception or to divert attention from the items that cast doubt on a theory.

You're right that a definition of alteration helps.

It seems to me that given the risk of having outright alterations in the sense of changing an image comnpletely or partially or recreating it is an endeavour frought with danger in the sense that how can one know one has all the unaltered images out of the way or that technology doesn't / will not exist to detect the frauds? I think that is something a conspiracywould tend to balk at and would rather go for croppings and complete removal of images.

Probably as you say the research would leap ahead with full public release of autopsy photos and films . I think the fact that those who are in a position to do so and yet don't do so is significant.

thanks, John -- appreciate your response.... I concur

David

Bill Miller wrote:

[...]

John ... did you not understand what I have said about this matter? Taking a poor quality print that has limited color tones and trying to draw faces on the backgrounds is ludicrous. Once someone thinks they may have seen something on a poor muddy print, would not the next step be to go to the best print possible and see if the image is really there or not? I mentioned doing this to Duncan, but he pretends to be too dumb to know why this should be done. I have now addressed the same reasoning with Jack White and I await to see how Jack responds. I am betting that you must also see the significance of the points I have raised.

Bill

shall we take your inference to mean, you're the LAST word on the matter, ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza photo related matter? If so, you might want to let us know your qualifications as being SUCH.... curious minds might want to know...

"Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing."

What do you mean by this Marcel?

One would only have to identify a single event between splices to step back or forward to create a time line to another event and crossreferencing do research timing. Similarly multiple crossreferencing across splices can fill in missing times and thus create a comprehensive reference.

Perhaps it would be nice to identify exactly what constitutes a altered film in the minds of those posting regarding the issue.

Do you agree, John, the reason for ANY 11/22/63 Dealey Plaza 'film' altering is/was performed to cover up a conspiracy in the murder of the President of the United States in 1963 (his murder for whatever reason)?

Dear Members,

Gary Mack has answered to my questions and debunk some of my assertions.

So, I was wrong regarding the "cross dissolve" effect.

Gary confirms that the Groden version is not complete.

Consequently, we have now the certainty that the Wiegman film ( Robert Groden version) isn't appropriate for research regarding the timing.

Regards...

P.S. Last update on my website...

Phil Willis Camera - Argus Autronic I - 35mm: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Phil%20Willis%20Camera.htm

Zapruder camera, Bell & Howell 414PD: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/Zapruder%20Camera.htm

Coming soon

Robert Earl Croft camera - Argus C3 - 35mm

Charles Bronson camera - Keystone Olympic K9 Turret.

Gary Mack answers

Hello Marcel,

Very busy week the past seven days, so I'm just now getting to some old messages.

The original, unedited Dave Wiegman film runs 36.5 seconds according to video tapes of the film's first broadcast at about 3pm local time that day.

If Groden's version is short, it's not his fault. That film has been shown many, many times since 1963 and I always see it edited differently. You have to known news film editors and news film editing techniques. The practice in those days was to edit film so blurry or confusing sequences aren't confusing to the audience.

Groden's version is missing a second or two at the very beginning of the film and some more is missing of the Newmans on the ground. There is one splice and maybe two, so more frames are probably missing at those places, too.

Groden owns at least two 16mm prints of the Wiegman film and the one he has on his video is the better image of the two.

As for the "problems" you found, none are significant:

1) The white line splice is, indeed, a splice. Whether the film was edited to remove blurry frames or was simply repaired from having been damaged, is unknown.

2) There is what appears to be another splice a little later. It is a black horizontal line near the bottom of the frame. (Black and white splice lines are quite normal, indicating editing on two different edit blocks that are not properly aligned.)

3) There are three segments to the Wiegman film, for once he filmed the Hesters, he stopped filming and walked toward the street. Then he started again and filmed the Newmans. Then he stopped again and, stepping onto the sidewalk, filmed the oncoming motorcade before panning to his left and catching Cheryl McKinnon dropping to the ground. Wiegman exposed 36.5 seconds of film in Dealey Plaza before jumping into his camera car and riding to Parkland.

4) Your "cross dissolve" is nothing more than ordinary blur artifacts from the film-to-tape transfer process. Different telecine machines create different artifacts, for they must match the 24 frames-per- second rate of 16mm film to the 29.97fps rate of US television. Converting US television to Europe's PAL standard or to France's SECAM standard induces additional anomalies.

5) In short, the blurs in the Wiegman film were present on the original broadcast of the unedited film. The composite "overlay" images you see are not present on the actual film. I have a 16mm 3rd or 4th generation print of the camera original Wiegman film and have examined it many times. The "overlay" is merely an artifact that appears only in some video versions of the film, not on the film itself.

6) You have to realize that a US video frame is actually two images, not one, and they overlap. Sometimes, depending on the video and how it was derived, one of the two fields (images) may not match the adjacent or following field, thus creating a composite. That is what you call an overlay.

Gary Mack

Thats an overlay? It's called a NTSC composite video frame, made up of two fields, one representing the odd scan lines the other representing even scanlines -- when individual fields are viewed one is seeing 50% resolution of the frame, quite frankly the entire MPI Zapruder film DVD appears at half resoulution, its horrible -- Stick to the otherside of the camera, Gary. Or give Roland Zavada a call A tape op or studio technical director, your NOT

TV lingo - 2 fields = 1 frame - the MPI video/DVD may have upwards of video3 frames representing 1 film frame (with drop frame it becomes more confusing), hence anything you see these days on videotape or DVD, Z-film, etal, appears on same at 30fps regardless of its offical film speed rating; in the case of the Z-film 18.3 fps....

So there more than enough issues regarding the Dealey Plaza films (including the Zapruder Film, more so than ALL other films). Timing problems arise whenever any of these films are reviewed and researchers peg frame numbers with realtime Nov22nd '63 DP events, or comparing the seamless film of Dealey Plaza with each other

Until competent film researchers are granted FULL access to the alledged camera original Zapruder film or, one of the three original optical film prints, the circle**** will continue. Hell, the individual Zapruder film frame 4x5 trannies shot during the NARA Z-film photo shot would be fine at this stage of the game... [of course I know a few people who'd question anything that came from someone other than themselves shooting the frames]

BTW, who owns those trannies used to create the new and improved Zapruder film, Gary? They at the 6th Floor too?

Keep on plugging, Marcel -- your work is viewed by more than a few....

David