-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 12/15/99 3:56:22 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << 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 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 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 keep others from >daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than >necessary. 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 with an apparent deductive logic in a way >that 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 Lorenz in a libel trial between E. Howard Hunt and >Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you >refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation >tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)? And definitely >obtain Michael Collins Piper's "FINAL JUDGMENT", which explains >the Mossad's role in JFK hit, contact ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >for details. > >14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring >opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which >works best for items qualifying for rule 10. > >Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is 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. 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 best definitive example of avoiding issues by this >technique is, perhaps, Arlen Specter's Magic Bullet from the >Warren Report. > >Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation >tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlen >Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the >magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the >issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke >authority)? And definitely obtain Michael Collins Piper's "FINAL >JUDGMENT", which explains the Mossad's role in JFK hit, contact ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for details. > >16. Vanishing 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?" True, since the >dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two >inches two 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 or >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 based on highly suspicious >matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. >Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such >disinformation tactics (rule 16 >- vanishing 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 because 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." 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 avoiding the issue with disinformation >tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to >sidetrack us with an emotional response -- 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 unless you can provide concrete facts to support your >contentions of relevance. 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 seemed 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 hear 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 proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is >perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what >material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim >the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for >the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his >disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely >destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to >completely avoid discussing issues may require 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. Only YOUR 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 [RUBINSTEIN was his birth name] 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. > >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 met with Jack Ruby [birth >name was RUBINSTIEN] in Dallas the night before the >assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby >[RUBINSTIEN] was a co-conspirator whose "Solidarist confession" >was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder. >Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such >disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)? And >definitely obtain Michael Collins Piper's "FINAL JUDGMENT", >which explains the Mossad's role in JFK hit, contact ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for details. > >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 (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) is achieved, the matter can be considered >officially closed. > >Example: According to one OK bombing 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. > >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. 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 trial situation >and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with >something else (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the >sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and >players during a game and 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. > >------------------------------------------------- > >If you would like rule 24 & 25 sent to you, request via E-Mail and it will be >sent. > >E-Mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Send 24 & 25) > >Walter Burien >M.O.A. >> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
