|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2012 5:39:58 GMT -4
Well using Uncle Jim as an expert didn't exactly endear me to his arguments. Anyone that thinks a guy who believes buildings should have acted like cardboard boxes is an expert has serious issues. With some of the claims Playdor is making I am wondering if he's a friend of 7forever from JREF. Any way you look at it, it's quite clear that he's only consulted conspiracist sources. Which as we all know are bastions of truth and bias-free reportage. Oh, wait.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2012 0:24:56 GMT -4
Right. I would want it treated like any other investigation, with weight given to evidence according to its merits. I would want more than "but this must have been faked somehow, even though there's no way for that to have been done!" I would want more than "the evidence which proves I'm right must be destroyed, because no one has seen it but it must be there!" I would want physical evidence, not claims literally decades after the fact. At this point, I'd almost settle for "anything which hasn't been debunked a hundred times before in articles which someone clearly hasn't bothered reading even after they were spoonfed with them." The default assumption is never conspiracy until there is evidence of a conspiracy presented, and "people aren't doing the things I think they should" isn't evidence of anything except flawed assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2012 22:18:32 GMT -4
And of course, Playdor "knows" things without even knowing what real research looks like. Ah, well.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2012 16:03:40 GMT -4
And then please prove that, in a sudden and life-threatening commotion, that takes place in a handful of seconds, with no time to think, people HAVE to do exactly what you think they should have done. Always remembering that most people have never been shot at before. It's one thing to expect reasoned reactions of combat veterans, though they don't always do the right thing under fire, either. It's quite another to expect them of just an ordinary person. And of course, "being around guns all your life" is not the same as "being under fire from someone who is clearly trying to kill humans." Practically any reaction would be perfectly normal, because people do weird things under trying conditions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2012 18:52:46 GMT -4
I have always wondered exactly how the Z-Film was supposed to have been modified. How did whoever did it know of its existance, seek in, take the film, modify it so that it wasn't obvious, then get it back in to the camera, and have no one any the wiser? What technology available in 1963 allowed a person to directly edit what was on an exposed strip of film, heck what technology today allows you to do that? This one has me baffled. And don't forget the timeline they were working on. Thirty frames were published in Life a week after the assassination. At that, the film was sold to Life on the twenty-third, a mere day after the assassination. And since the copy owned by Life matched the copies handled by the investigators, that means any alterations had to be made in less than twenty-four hours. No, without an explanation of how it was done, only an idiot would believe it had been altered.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 10, 2012 3:45:28 GMT -4
Why assume that? He lies about all kinds of other things; maybe he's already spending it in the full knowledge that he's never going to make that kind of money.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 9, 2012 18:55:25 GMT -4
Jarrah White has yet to show that he knows what he's talking about in any field.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 9, 2012 0:58:37 GMT -4
Yeah, I don't believe he's a sock. Just another ignorant teenager trying to make himself feel special.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 8, 2012 15:47:56 GMT -4
Because of my interest in Apollo I have learned so much about Apollo. This is rare among hoax believers. There are still plenty out there who believe we only landed on the Moon once and get all confused when people ask them questions about, say, Apollo 14.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 7, 2012 4:44:30 GMT -4
I think a minuscule percentage of the US population has even heard of Jarrah White, much less has any interest in sending him to the Moon. Why should they want to? What value are they getting for their buck?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 5, 2012 15:37:18 GMT -4
I am allowed to include a phone on my list of expenses, but not my internet connection, which I consider more important.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 5, 2012 0:01:29 GMT -4
It doesn't really. I wasn't thinking at that level of detail when I wrote it. The thinking was something more like; we will consume entertainment at a with some consistency, but how we consume it can change widely over a time depending on how it is delivered. That is we all used to watch home video entertainment on a TV, then partially substituted video tape, then DVDs. Now now many people skip the pricey video subscriptions and use their internet connection to download torrents. So the shows have changed according to fashion, but the distribution has changed according to the business needs to reach the customer. Or in the case of torrents...whatever you want to call a torrent user. I know Hollywood has some unpleasant names for them. Yes, but the very existence of TV was a new purchase once upon a time. The ubiquity of an expensive object in the home for purely entertainment purposes is really quite new. I'm on a fixed income, but the idea of being without a TV--and, come to that, a computer--is all but incomprehensible to me. There are all kinds of things I'd do without first. Whereas it was quite exciting to my grandmother when they first got a radio, I'm sure. Before that, they would have made their own entertainment, and they definitely wouldn't have had, say, a piano. Too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 4, 2012 23:57:00 GMT -4
Good luck with that. The equipment they use can't be cheap.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 4, 2012 16:04:43 GMT -4
I can't think the demand would be very high.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 4, 2012 16:03:49 GMT -4
My view is that people and what they choose to consume, as an aggregate, does not change much over time. What changes is the business of providing the goods to be consumed. How does that explain fads? Fashion?
|
|