|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 13, 2011 13:28:28 GMT -4
In the 1973 movie Executive Action, was the evidence presented concerning Oswald fabricated or was it presented fairly and factual? I am curious to know if there was anything in the documentary EVIDENCE OF REVISION that you found of value? Did you watch all of the 5 disks? I'm not going to buy your movie, nor is anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 13, 2011 13:44:24 GMT -4
Anyone with nine hours or so time to invest is such things can watch Evidence of Revision here.Episodes included: The Assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald, The Why of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ, LBJ, Hoover and Others. What So Few Know Even Today, The RFK Assassination As Never Seen Before, The RFK Assassination Continued, MK ULTRA and the Jonestown Massacre, MLK Conspiratus. I have a life and do not plan indulge playdor's conspiracy mongering. On the other hand, the same site has the excellent James Burke: Connections. A series that I haven't watched since it was on PBS in the 70's. That would be worth a few hours in the evening.
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 13, 2011 14:00:33 GMT -4
I guess I should apologize and retort my previous statement.
I will not buy or highly doubt watch your movie, I also highly doubt anyone here will do either as well.
Ps- my apologies to the forum I did not mean to speak on behalf of anyone.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 16:13:46 GMT -4
Oh, that's rich coming from you. Have you read the Warren Report? Have you read the reports of literally hundreds of experts over the decades, all of which show that, while someone else's field may show evidence of a conspiracy, theirs does not? (And people in that other field? Believe someone else's field. And so forth.) A deathbed confession, any deathbed confession, does not override the physical evidence. So unless E. Howard Hunt's explained what he was doing in the Texas Schoolbook Depository, it's meaningless. Don't you realize that anyone can confess to anything, and that a deathbed confession means attention you won't get prosecuted for?
As to E. Howard Hunt, he's a known liar. He's a known publicity hound. He's known for several things having nothing to do with things like "honesty" or "respect for history." I don't know anything about his son, but by saying his father confessed--and do we have anything other than his word for that?--he gets attention for his father that his father can't refute. What you seem incapable of understanding is that the motives of conspiracy theorists aren't always pure. That's why you have to follow the evidence instead.
Actually, if you go into it with a decent mindset, Connections (which is wonderful, and which I own) might do you some good. For one thing, it shows you how every action has unintended consequences. For another, part of what he leads up to in the series is Apollo, which he covered for the BBC. You might learn something, if you'd let yourself. Though it's no substitute for real research, of course.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 18:44:07 GMT -4
The Lone Gunmen is a very funny show. In fact, I own it. But it's fiction. There's a difference. In fact, I believe that, in the X-Files universe, JFK was killed by conspirators. However, we don't (thank Gods) live in the X-Files universe. Chris Carter can say whatever he wants to, and it frankly doesn't matter. It doesn't outweigh evidence, a concept you seem to have a very difficult time with.
I don't know anything about E. Howard Hunt's relationship with his son. Maybe they actually hated each other. But if you believe that garbage about how he's the real person behind Mission: Impossible, you really need to study some television history. And I have no reason to believe anything he said about JFK, because it's hearsay. You still have to explain the physical evidence, and people who have actually looked at it, as you manifestly have not, have all either concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald did it or twisted themselves in knots trying to explain how he didn't, introducing some really ludicrous stuff in the process.
What I want, before I'll accept "But he said he did it!" as any kind of evidence, is an explanation that actually makes sense as to how. The ballistics shows that Oswald's rifle fired the bullets. The forensics shows that the bullets inflicted the wounds. The trajectory shows that the shots were fired from the Schoolbook Depository. The so-called "audio evidence," the only thing the Senate Select Subcommittee relied on for their conclusion of conspiracy, has been shown to be fatally flawed on at least three levels. You think, obviously, that I only believe Oswald did it because that's what I've been told, and you're wrong. Clearly, that's how you operate--you believe everything E. Howard Hunt wanted you to. (Look how successful he was at keeping Watergate a secret, after all!) But I've actually done research, a concept you don't understand. I know that there are dozens of guys out there claiming to be the person who shot JFK, because it means someone will pay attention to them. And none of them will ever be prosecuted, because the physical evidence shows that the assassin is already dead.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 19:26:50 GMT -4
They came to that conclusion based on a single piece of evidence. That piece of evidence has since been proven to be something other than what they think it was.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 13, 2011 19:29:23 GMT -4
X-files [...] the series The Lone Gunman [...] TV / movies mission impossible [...] 1973 movie Executive Action How on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Green Earth do details from fiction bolster your case about what happened out here in reality?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 13, 2011 19:35:39 GMT -4
Playdor, that same article you link to includes a section on the invalidity of the acoustic evidence that was the sole basis for the conclusion there was a second gunman.
So you have one report that concludes there was a second gunman, and a whole bunch of reports and evidence that says there was not. Why do you believe the one over the huge piles of the other?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 13, 2011 21:47:47 GMT -4
Yup, it's more credible if you post the exact same thing twice.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 21:55:40 GMT -4
You are aware that at least one member of the Senate Select Subcommittee went in with the preconception that it must have been the mob, right? And was determined, to the irritation of the people responsible for gathering evidence, that the report would prove it?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 21:56:13 GMT -4
Playdor, why do you assume that none of us know any of this?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 13, 2011 22:25:27 GMT -4
so I should have figured since you guys were just posers in the Apollo section, that you would be posers here also my miss take again Maybe some day you will understand that just saying something doesn't make it true. The members of this forum have demonstrated a level of knowledge far superior to yours. Calling us "posers" implies that you were able to show that we are wrong, which is absolutely ridiculous. You would have to be delusional to believe that you know more about Apollo than we do. If you continue to insult us I will ban you.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 22:33:30 GMT -4
Congress investigated the JFK assassination because ignorant paranoids wouldn't shut up on the subject. No matter how little they knew, they figured they knew more than experts in the field.
There's plenty I don't know anything about. I, personally, don't know enough about orbital mechanics to plot the orbit of the Apollo missions. However, because I don't know that, I rely on people who do. And a lot of people around here do know that, and none of them think there's anything wrong with Apollo. But I'll tell you what. I'll give you the complete list of things I don't know anything about if you'll just once show evidence that you know anything about anything.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 13, 2011 22:43:32 GMT -4
gillianren i don't know anything about anything i know a little about a lot Do you realize that doesn't make any sense? If you don't know anything about anything, then you don't even know a little about anything. Maybe if you had a better understanding of English you wouldn't get so confused by what Neil Armstrong said about stars, for example.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 23:11:41 GMT -4
gillianren i don't know anything about anything i know a little about a lot No, I know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little. You were right the first time. You don't know anything about anything. You don't even know enough to realize that your two sentences are mutually contradictory.
|
|