|
Post by gillianren on Jan 29, 2012 3:26:32 GMT -4
Allow me to voice my approval of this development, anyway. You can only argue with a wall for so long.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 21:42:19 GMT -4
Actually, there's a difference between childish and childlike. Being childlike, to me, includes a spirit of open inquiry, of learning for the sheer joy of exploring the world that's out there. In that sense, no, he isn't very childlike. However, he insults people and creates false personae to agree with him when he can't get real people to, and that's certainly childish.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 17:08:04 GMT -4
Do the astronauts themselves ever read this type of thing? I wonder how they might respond. "Go talk to Jay Windley."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 17:07:01 GMT -4
As it happens, I know more about the political and social aspects of the Apollo missions than the science, and the idea that there was a hoax is still ludicrous.
And yes, "for all mankind" is a phrase you might want to contemplate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 15:57:43 GMT -4
Because it's transparent that he doesn't understand the topic at hand.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 22, 2012 16:51:10 GMT -4
Not as long as they refuse to argue based on evidence. They're arguing based on a belief that you can't trust the evidence, which is an emotional argument and harder to refute. Not because the chain of evidence isn't perfectly transparent in most cases, but because they don't want to believe that it is.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 21, 2012 3:38:13 GMT -4
Or there's the episode of Unsolved History where they shoot a bullet into wood and have it coming out looking much like that one did.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 20, 2012 6:30:06 GMT -4
I've just finished Stephen King's novel about Kennedy and Oswald, and he points out in the afterword (in which he says that he's about 98% sure that Oswald did it, maybe 99%) that Norman Mailer went to write a book about how the whole thing was a conspiracy, did the research, and realized that he no longer believed that it was a conspiracy and instead believed that Oswald acted alone. He did have preconceptions--and decided they were wrong and that Oswald did it. He looked at the evidence, not the theories, and simply couldn't make the evidence fit what he wanted to believe. That is intellectual honesty.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 17, 2012 14:33:40 GMT -4
I read others' bits but not Playdor's. It's soothing to know that the intelligent people see through the flimflammery and to the reality. Evidence and logic state that there was a single gunman firing from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Further evidence shows that the man was Lee Harvey Oswald. I sympathize with Marina, who didn't want to believe her husband could do such a thing, but it's worth pointing out that she certainly did believe it in 1963. Robert Oswald believed it all along--as did Robert Kennedy, contrary to the lies people have told saying that he didn't. Almost everyone with a vested interest in the case acknowledged that Lee did it. It's only people who don't who take the time to play games with the facts.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 16, 2012 17:20:12 GMT -4
But then you also have to explain away the dozen or so witnesses who clearly saw your client shoot officer Tippit or running away immediately afterwards as he reloaded his revolver. Sure, and that's of course a problem with my "JFK conspiracy theory that makes sense" explanation. My solution? Make them separate crimes. Any defense attorney worth his salt would insist that the shooting of a police officer and the shooting of a President are not the same thing, especially given all the differences between the crimes. (Rifle vs. handgun, sniper vs. face-to-face, etc.) If I were Oswald's defense attorney, that would have been easy enough to deal with. It's all the other evidence which would have been more difficult. Even in my attempt at a conspiracy theory, I concede that Oswald shot Tippit, because you pretty much have to. Though of course some conspiracists don't believe he did it. Goldbergian thinking strikes again.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 16, 2012 17:12:08 GMT -4
You're really not paying attention, are you? Why should he start now?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 15, 2012 18:59:53 GMT -4
So, your theory is that there were THREE separate shooters? Who was running this conspiracy, Rube Goldbert? Goldberg. But all JFK conspiracy theories tend toward the Goldbergian. No one wants to go with "it was someone else in the shooter's nest," which is the most logical way to start your conspiracy theory. It always has to be angles ruled out by either ballistics or logic. (After all, above and behind is the only possible angle for the neck shot to come from unless you're positing that Connally did it!) This is yet more evidence that JFK conspiracy theories aren't based on fact. They're based on emotion. These people want to believe in a conspiracy, and they'll grasp at straws--and, yes, make things up--in order to make their fantasies work.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 15, 2012 17:33:07 GMT -4
That episode of Unsolved History is available on Netflix. Not streaming, alas, but the Discovery Channel website might have it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 15, 2012 16:39:35 GMT -4
I saw someone do it on a TV show regarding the assassination. I've seen people fire off three shots in quick succession from other manual relaoding rifles. My personal favourite is that, if you watch Oliver Stone's dreadful and inaccurate JFK with a stopwatch, someone manages to cycle the weapon even faster than the too-short time Stone claims you couldn't cycle the weapon in. And that's the thing--Oswald had more time than the Warren Commission said he did; it's one of a handful of places where the Commission was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2012 18:34:29 GMT -4
We know that RFK and LBJ really didn't like each other from before JFK was inaugurated. Since we know that, why would RFK keep silent? Indeed, why did he publicly go on record agreeing with the conclusions of the Warren Report?
|
|