As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds from rifles of that power look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!

Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.

After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do intermediate-caliber rifle exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!

Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.

After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from?

Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.

After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!

Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.

After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It."

Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.

If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal. After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It."

Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?

So which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.

If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal. After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It. Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert... No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.

If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal. After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It. Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert... No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.

If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to use as a keyword causing automatic dismissal. After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It. Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert... No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last.

If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal. After all, the powerful *never *have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It. Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert... No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It.

Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert...

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lost to most people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of his career? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It.

Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert...

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lost to most people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?

Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?

As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.

As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, brought ought at most 3 proofs as to how OJ was guilty.

Instead, she thought it would be better to have 100 Reasons Why OJ Did It.

Even to the point of, "Here, watch him put on the gloves! See, they fit! So they must be his gloves!"

And a lot more besides that.

No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.

This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lost to most people.

It's really simple.

What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds look that way, or entrance wounds?

Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back? Which direction was he shot from?

And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?