John Butler

I don't believe you are humorous at all. I believe you are dead serious in countering the arguments of people you disagree with. Instead of humor your writings are more in tune with other things, perhaps those listed below. Goad Opponents Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.” Shoot the Messenger Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label. Change the Subject Find a way to sidetrack 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. Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist. Deny, Deny, Deny No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable.

If you look closely at the shape of the pedestal, Sitzman's feet are closer to the front of the pedestal than Zapruder's feet. That can be seen in any of the examples posted.

Sandy, This should help with that editor problem. It is Jeremy's unanswerable question tactic.

Sorry, It is the editor that does that when quoting. I will take care of that right away.

This is real blurry after several mags. But, it does show Sitzman first on the pedestal just as it does in Speer's example.

ditto.

In his vast, but one-sided imagination and rhetoric. And, with a few ad hominems thrown in for good measure. If he is not criticizing someone, he is unhappy. He has absolutely no proof that Doug Horne is unreliable other than his outrageous claim.

Sandy, I will add these versions to your types: There is another kind that I owned when I was in Korea in 1967-1968. I bought it at a "kimchi" shop. These were small shops with limited things to sell. What a Minox camera was doing there I have no idea. Well, except the Koreans were legendary thieves and rumored to be able to steal anything. It probably came from 2nd ID intelligence. I believe these were the same people who kept Oswald's files. The camera I had was completely featureless. It appeared to be of brushed aluminum. It was like the Minox EC and had to be opened to get at the controls. I bought film for it at the PX. After I did that the camera vanished from my locked wall locker. Here's a pic showing from Dec. 1967 showing where I bought the camera. Frankie's Store in Chang Pa Ri. It was rumored if you had the money you could buy anything there. This photo was taken with a Minox camera. The photography is ok, but the development was not great since I had never developed photos before. It was a good camera for photographing anything. Everything in the 2nd division area looked pretty much like this. No permanent structures could be built since they would be destroyed if there was an invasion by North Korea.

The waltz expression concerns their movement on the area they were standing on. Also, in Jack's example it is not the skirt that is important, but the legs are in front of Zapruder. Unless one suggests Zapruder had women's legs. The second example shows basically the same thing seen from a different, perspective angle.

Very well said.

What one needs to consider here is reasonable doubt. Were there enough reasonable, corroborated witnesses to establish reasonable doubt in the vehicle stop notion. Myself, I have never considered the p. limo stop or slow down significant except in the notion that perhaps the driver was a co-conspirator ensuring a good shot at the president. And, I know I will be called out for this. I don't believe anything we see in the Z film after Z frame 133 actually happened as portrayed on lower Elm Street.

Ron, I have the same conclusions as you after watching various documentaries on this subject over the years. Even rewatching them through the years. All of the things that you note I have also seen. However, when dealing folks like Jeremy B. you will find he is unconvinced by solid reasoning and adequate proof. I have posted a few cointelpro tactics. You might consider those when someone denigrates your work and understand that you are still right.

You might add to this that witness testimony need to be refuted by direct evidence or other testimony. Even if that testimony is wrong. If it can't be proven wrong that it will stand. That's a good point above.

Sandy, Do you see any of this from certain people on the Forum: "Avoid, Avoid, Avoid Avoid discussing issues head-on. Rather, get your point across by implying it. Avoid the subject of proof or references documenting your own position. Deny, Deny, Deny No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable. Cite studies on eyewitness credibility. Present False Evidence Whenever possible, manufacture new “facts” to conflict with opponent presentations. Invoke Authority Associate yourself with authority, but avoid specifically discussing your credentials, while implying your authority and expertise. Present your argument with “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows.” Then simply dismiss your opponent’s comments without demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist. You should familiarize yourself with this literature, and have a ready arsenal of quotes to post. Fit Facts to Suit Alternate Conclusions Think like the attorney who manages to make someone else look guilty of the crime his client is charged with — using the same evidence. Label it a “Wild Rumor” Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ”wild rumor.” Change the Subject Find a way to sidetrack 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. Demand Impossible Proof No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by. Demand Complete Solutions Avoid issues by requiring opponents to solve every detail of the issue. Label it “An Enigma with 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 people to lose interest. Grasp at Straw Men Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Become Indignant Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.” Hit and Run Briefly attack your opponent — 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 to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response. Goad Opponents Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.” Question Motives Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. Shoot the Messenger Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label. Play the Victim Select a minor error of your own that was among many, larger problems pointed out by your opponent. Then take the “high road and “confess” your “honest mistake, discovered in hindsight.” Blame it on bad sources. Then accuse your opponent of blowing it all out of proportion and implying worse things which “just aren’t so.” Later, others can reinforce this on your behalf, and “call for an end to the nonsense.” You have already “done the right thing.” This can garner respect, even sympathy, for “’owning up” to your mistake. And in the meantime, all of your opponent’s proof of the more serious issues will be discarded. People will be tired of the subject and will want to move on. Dirtiest Trick of All, So Far There is yet another tactic that seems to be in widespread use in forums on the JFK assassination, and it is the ultimate con: Disinformants earn trust by establishing themselves as conspiracy theorists. They often “prove” it by recycling, then repackaging, the stolen work of others. (Since the information is already out there in the ether, they are not really damaging the cover-up.) Or they may present a new theory,one that sounds good but is actually nonsense. Once established, they abuse this undeserved trust in many ways, including the following: (a) they discredit the work of real researchers, mostly on their say so, rather than providing proof; (b) they attack the reliability of critical eye-witnesses; and (c) they support key points of the official narrative — points not related to their “own” work. For example, while presenting a theory on JFK’s head wound, they may parenthetically slip in support for the single bullet theory, an issue that does not involve the head. Many of these people are depressingly mediocre in intellect, and are not very good at what they do in any arena. Their dirty work in the JFK arena is also not very good, and frequently arouses suspicion in other researchers, and even in members of the general public. Often, they contrast themselves with those who openly defend the official story, using the tactics described above. They say, “I’m not a spook. That’s a spook!” And they fiercely support each other, using their large numbers to gang up on their accusers, trying to intimidate them, or to just exhaust them with endless confrontation. In the forums they control, they will have the last word."

David, Thanks for reminding me about cointelpro tactics. If other folks are like me, I have let those things slip from my mind. To make up, I have posted a few. I couldn't find yours (I will search again), but these that I have posted should be adequate.

Jeremy, Have you read witness testimony concerning how Oswald left the TSBD? There are two different accounts of how that happened. I think we are getting to Jeremy on "conspiracy stuff". Nah. It is just another cointelpro. "There is yet another tactic that seems to be in widespread use in forums on the JFK assassination, and it is the ultimate con: Disinformants earn trust by establishing themselves as conspiracy theorists. They often “prove” it by recycling, then repackaging, the stolen work of others. (Since the information is already out there in the ether, they are not really damaging the cover-up.) Or they may present a new theory,one that sounds good but is actually nonsense." More of the same.

I believe Jeremy B. is in denial without proof or evidence to support his positions. He has to resort to the the tactics listed above to make his point. Furthermore, he is ...... OBTW, how do you get away saying such things? I really would like to know so I can do it too.

More cointelpro? "Grasp at Straw Men Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Become Indignant Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.” Hit and Run Briefly attack your opponent — 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 to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response. Goad Opponents Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.” Question Motives Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. Shoot the Messenger Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label."

I can't answer the unanswerable question. "Demand Impossible Proof No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by."

David, The last statement on this image I thought was really fascinating, but likely to be undoable. Altogether great info and to the point.

It is my opinion, and I reluctantly say it in fear of the censors, that Jeremy sees only what he wants to see.

Well, Jeremy is the all wise and all knowing fellow on the assassination. He now claims he is a conspiracy theorist saying that the Zapruder shows that and therefore there was no need to alter the film.

Don't forget Mandarin the assassin.

This implies that Haire did know and recognize Oswald, or an Oswald double at the back of the theater for 25 years. As far as having little interest in a newsworthy event, Haire thought he saw the real thing in Oswald being escorted from the theater. His Oswald was nearly identical to the Oswald taken from the front of the theater. This is another reason I am changing my opinion on how close the resemblances of the two Oswalds was. Of course, then there is the problem that a good many people have with facial recognition that needs to be considered.

Another example of ignoring reality for the sake of one's arguments.