Jeremy Bojczuk
-
Posts
1,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jeremy Bojczuk
-
-
Ron Bulman writes:
QuoteI have trouble following the mathematical details of your work
You aren't the only one, Ron! No-one else seems to know what Chris has been going on about either.
If anyone does understand it, perhaps they could help Chris out by providing us with a detailed explanation, using words rather than formulae and gifs (on the appropriate thread, not this one).
-
I made the point that John Butler's witnesses are consistent with what we see in the home movies and photographs. The shooting happened on Elm Street, not Houston Street or Main Street or the middle of the Gobi desert.
John objected to this, but then for some reason cited aspects of their statements which actually support my case: the shots started "as the vehicle turned onto Elm St", "as the motorcade turned into the intersection", "after the President’s car turned down Elm St."
Those witnesses certainly do not support Denise Hazelwood's claim that there was no head shot at frame 313. Why John even brought them up in this context is a mystery.
As Karl Hilliard points out, the 'Hickey shot JFK' claim is nonsense. It's clear from the Bronson film that this did not happen.
This long-debunked theory was re-heated and served up on television at the time of the fiftieth anniversary in order to support the notion that Oswald shot JFK from the sixth floor without accomplices. The only remotely plausible way this notion could be correct is if the head shot, which cannot have come from the sixth floor, instead came from an unwitting source. George Hickey's recent demise was seized on to allow him to perform that role.
It's bizarre that someone should use this nonsensical lone-nut theory, which no serious student of the assassination supports, as part of a convoluted conspiracy theory.
To answer Denny's original question: the best way to deal with people who were duped into believing the 'Hickey shot JFK' theory is to get them to look at the Bronson film, which actually shows Hickey not shooting JFK. You could also point out to them that it is blatant lone-nut propaganda and that no-one with any real knowledge of the assassination takes it seriously.
-
The list of witnesses John Butler gave us:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26714-anomalous-witness-statements-in-dealey-plaza/
doesn't provide any solid evidence to contradict the various home movies which show a head shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film.
The first named witness, Alan Smith, was almost certainly mistaken when he claimed to have been standing on Main Street. This article makes a good case that Smith, who was 14 at the time of the assassination, was in fact one of two boys standing on Elm Street, near the so-called Umbrella Man:
Chris Scally, ‘Alan Smith and Friends’, Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.17 no.3 (Winter 2012), pp.38–46: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146599#relPageId=39
All of John's other witness statements are either vague or are perfectly consistent with what the photographic record shows: the shooting happened while the car was on Elm Street.
None of those witnesses support Denise Hazelwood's claim that "there was no head shot at 313". That's hardly surprising, since for Denise's claim to be true several home movies would have had to be altered, a laborious and time-consuming procedure which would need to be proved in order to be believed.
Before Denise gets around to proving that the home movies were altered, perhaps she could let us know of any witnesses who specifically contradict what we see in the home movies, so that we can evaluate their statements.
-
Chris Davidson writes:
QuoteWaiting for your explanation.
No, if someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to justify their claim. It isn't up to anyone else to refute the claim.
As I mentioned in the comment immediately above the one Chris linked to, we've had two decades' worth of anomalies being identified that have turned out to be worthless. The burden of proof has never been met, and after 20 years of detailed scrutiny and failed attempts, it isn't likely to be, either.
I pointed out elsewhere that Chris's fondness for numbers has led him to see significance in coincidences:
John Butler writes:
Quoteover 100 witnesses, somewhere around 114, testified to something different than the head shot at Z313 and what is seen in other films related to the shooting in front of the Grassy Knoll.
So more than 100 witnesses testified to the head shot taking place somewhere other than where the limo was at frame 313?
Perhaps John could open a new thread and give us chapter and verse on all these witnesses, with details of exactly where they said the head shot actually took place. Let's see what the evidence is, and whether the witnesses really said what John thinks they said.
If, as I suspect, there are only a handful of anomalous witnesses rather than over a hundred, why should we believe them over several home movies and photographs?
-
Denise Hazelwood wrote:
QuoteThe Z313 head shot is the product of film alteration.
Jonathan Cohen asked:
QuoteAre you saying there was no head shot at 313? What specific film alteration do you allege took place?
Denise replied:
QuoteYes, that is exactly what I'm saying, that there was no head shot at 313. There was a shot there, but not a head shot. You can't trust the Z-film as evidence of anything. ...
The Zapruder film is a fake. The autopsy picts and X-rays were also faked. Once you realize that, you can largely ignore them. ...
You have to accept that there are authenticity issues related to both the Z film and the readily found autopsy images ... there is an authenticity problem with the Z film (frames removed to hide the limo stop) ... the whole thing, including the early frames, is worthless as evidence. ... You have to ignore the Z film ...
Denise hasn't answered the second part of Jonathan's question. What specific alterations to the film is she proposing?
If frame 313 of the Zapruder film, which clearly indicates a shot to the head, is a fake, how was that bit of fakery done? Was the image of JFK's head wound painted in? Was it a cut-and-paste job, using a frame taken from some other part of the car's journey along Elm Street? Or was it created entirely from scratch?
What about frames 314 onward, which show debris flying through the air and JFK famously falling back and to the left? Were those frames faked too? If so, how was it done? Painted-in, cut-and-paste, or created from scratch?
As for the missing car stop, how was that bit of fakery done? Were a number of frames snipped out and the two ends joined together? If so, how is that consistent with the film's depiction of the car moving smoothly down Elm Street? If, on the other hand, frames were not snipped out, exactly how was the car stop removed?
Did the head-shot and car-stop fakery involve the copying of a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film? If so, how would Denise account for the condition of the Zapruder film that is in the National Archives? The film apparently contains none of the defects that would inevitably be generated by copying one Kodachrome film onto a second Kodachrome film, as Roland Zavada explained in his report for the ARRB. You'll find a link to Zavada's report and other useful sources here:
http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm
If the fakery did not involve copying a revised set of frames onto a new reel of Kodachrome film, and the film in the National Archives is indeed the one that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination, how would Denise reconcile the condition of the film with the alterations she claims were made to it?
If the head shot at frame 313 is a fake and a car stop has been removed from the Zapruder film, how would Denise account for the other home movies and photographs which are consistent with what we see in the relevant section of the Zapruder film?
Presumably, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photograph, and the Altgens 7 photograph were also faked in some way. How was it done, in each case? I'd be especially interested to learn how the Moorman photo was faked in the short period of time before numerous copies were distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination.
If the head shot did not take place when the various home movies and still photographs indicate that it took place, could Denise tell us exactly when it did take place? These and several other home movies and photos show the car at various points on its journey along Elm Street. Are there any images of the car at the instant when Denise thinks the head shot actually occurred? If, as is likely, such images exist, why do they not show it? Were they faked too? If so, in each case, how was it done?
Denise also writes:
QuoteIf you ignore the Z-film and pay attention to the witnesses, you get a different story of what happened.
That's a big 'if'! It should read:
QuoteIf you ignore the Z-film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, the Moorman photograph, and the Altgens 7 photograph, and pay attention to a small proportion of the witnesses, you get a different story of what happened.
Why should we believe those witnesses? We should expect people to make the occasional mistake when they recall the fine details of a brief, unexpected and traumatic event.
In the case of the supposed car stop, we have on the one hand a small number of witnesses who claimed consistently that the car pulled over to the left and stopped momentarily (see http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street ). We have on the other hand a much larger number of witnesses who would have seen the car stop if it had happened, and would surely have reported it but did not do so. And of course we also have four home movies and two still photographs that agree, unambiguously, that the car did not pull over to the left and stop at the time of the head shot.
Until Denise or anyone else can demonstrate that these home movies and photographs were faked, there is no good reason to prefer the accounts of a small number of fallible human witnesses.
Incidentally, the case for the supposed car stop was dismantled on this forum a few months ago:
QuoteLook at the witness statements, look at what those who saw the "other" Zapruder film describe.
Oh dear. The "other" Zapruder film! It's the JFK assassination's equivalent of alien abduction stories. Is Denise seriously claiming that a handful of people, in different parts of the world, were neither lying nor honestly mistaken when they claimed that such a valuable, top-secret film was for some reason made available for them to watch?
-
David Andrews writes:
QuoteMore than ever, we need the evaluation by editing and special effects people working in the 1960s that Doug Horne promised to organize.
Is that the Wilkerson thing? I've been reading for years that a super-detailed scan was being examined by special-effects experts, and that it would provide definitive proof of fakery that would blow the case out of the water.
As with some end-of-the-world prophecy that limps past its deadline, we're still waiting for the apocalypse to arrive. Does anyone know what happened to that particular effort to prove that the film was faked? If those experts had actually found anything, I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.
The Zapruder-film-is-a-fake speculation has been going on for - what? - twenty years, maybe longer, and there's still no proof.* All we have is a collection of apparent anomalies, almost all of which have turned out to have plausible, innocent explanations. Mary Moorman was standing in the street! Oh wait, she wasn't. The lamp posts look kinda strange! Oh wait, they don't. And so on.
The problem is that this anomaly-hunting can go on forever. There are plenty of copies of copies of copies of copies of the Zapruder film floating about, with each copy adding a new collection of strange-looking artefacts.
And of course there's no shortage of people who can pounce on these artefacts. These people may not know much about photography, but they do like the idea of a vastly complicated conspiracy. I've found a blob in a 17th-generation copy of the Zapruder film! I can't think of how that blob might have got there! That means it's a forgery!
The crazy thing is that the Zapruder film is perhaps the strongest piece of documentary evidence to contradict the lone-gunman explanation. But who cares about that if you've got the chance to indulge your taste for ridiculously elaborate conspiracies?
* Not only is there no proof, but there isn't even any agreement on what is wrong with the film, or why this or that part might have needed to be altered. A frame or two in this section were tweaked! No, a few frames in that section were removed! No, the whole thing was reconstructed from scratch! That disagreement by itself is a pretty good clue that it's all just the product of over-active imaginations.
-
David Josephs writes:
QuoteWould u be so kind as to provide the proof Sitzman did not film anything? ... Rather than shooting the messenger, offer proofs for the anomalies from some other source.
It isn't up to Jonathan or anyone else to disprove someone's speculative assertion. That isn't how things work.
It's up to the person who made the speculative assertion to prove their case. If they can't, it remains exactly that: empty speculation.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, of course. Although I've only popped in here occasionally over the last few weeks, I've seen little other than wild speculation, in all sorts of areas. I think this forum needs to be renamed. Rather than the Education Forum, it now seems to be the Speculation Forum.
I particularly enjoyed the pages and pages of speculation about the Tippit killing, and the attempts to incorporate that killing into a Grand Unified Theory of the JFK assassination. I mean, Oswald was charged with killing Tippit, so it must have been part of the plot from the beginning, mustn't it?
Why stop there? It doesn't take many people to shoot some guy in a slow-moving open-topped car, but that's no fun. The more complicated and unlikely the theory we can construct, the more fun we can have!
It should be possible to work plenty of the minor characters into our Grand Unified Theory. Let's start with the Babushka Lady. She must have been involved somehow, mustn't she? Maybe she helped Richard Nagell, Michael Paine, and one of the four Marguerite Oswalds to operate the mobile photo lab in Dealey Plaza that faked the Altgens photos! Go on, prove that she didn't!
-
John Butler writes:
QuoteBut, there is now good evidence that there was filmed more than 1 Zapruder film. Maybe, a case for 3 films so far.
As usual, it's difficult to tell whether John Butler is being serious or is just having a laugh at our expense.
There could be as many as three Zapruder films, apparently. And the deception and forgery don't stop there. According to Mr Butler, almost all of the home movies and photographs from Dealey Plaza have been faked in some way. That includes the Altgens photographs, several of which were somehow altered during the half an hour or so before they were transmitted all over the world. Then we have the three or four Oswalds that Mr Butler has proposed. And presumably each of these three or four Oswalds would have had his own Marguerite.
I dread to think what he will conjure into existence when he finds out about Lifton's body-alteration and papier-mâché trees nonsense, or Mr Caddy's little green men.
If Mr Butler is having a laugh with all of this far-fetched stuff, a question arises. Who is he making fun of? Is he satirising the everything-is-a-fake, Jack White school of JFK assassination enthusiasts, by taking their fanciful speculations to extremes? If so, he's doing a splendid job. Keep up the good work, Mr Butler!
Of course, if he's being serious, he really needs to stop speculating for a moment and work out how all of this widespread fakery might actually have happened. If almost all the photos and films were faked, how exactly could it have been done?
-
Good points, Gil. There are some similarities between your account of the Tippit incident and Greg Parker's:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2451-the-bad-boys-of-oak-cliff-part-i
I've always been puzzled by the need to incorporate the Tippit murder (or, for example, the Richard Nagell and Rose Cherami stories) into some grand unified theory of the JFK assassination. What people should be doing is eliminating as much of the poorly supported or outlying stuff as possible, rather than trying to incorporate as much of it as possible.
I'm sure we all recognise the flimsiness of the witness and ballistics evidence against Oswald as the killer of Tippit. We know that the killing was pinned on Oswald after the event. But all of that doesn't mean that the Tippit killing had to be part of a finely worked-out pre-assassination plot to incriminate Oswald.
A Hollywood scriptwriter might want to take the Tippit murder and make it part of the main JFK assassination narrative by, say, having Tippit chase Oswald around Dallas after having shot Kennedy from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It would make for a nicely tied-together movie plot, but it wouldn't make for a credible interpretation of the assassination.
On a side note, it's good to find a thread on this forum that's actually about the JFK assassination, rather than 9/11, vaccinations, Trump, or those little green men that live among us.
-
Dennis Berube writes:
Quotethe Massachusetts CDC just published a study of 469 “delta” cases in July 2021. 74% of the cases were vaccinated! 80% of those hospitalized were vaxxed!
That's a good example of why know-nothing anti-vaxxer propagandists on social media aren't the most reliable source of information, even if they do tell Dennis what he wants to hear.
The supposed problem is debunked here:
The phenomenon is explained by two statisticians here:
I gave that link a week ago in reply to Chris Barnard's comment that
QuoteIt’s almost like you are completely unaware that people who have had both shots are catching the virus, spreading the virus and are dying of the virus.
The principle is simple, so even ill-informed anti-vaxxers should be able to grasp it. As the proportion of a population that is vaccinated against covid increases, those who are vaccinated will form an increasing proportion of the covid-related deaths that occur.
The second article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die.
QuoteThis virus simply isn’t killing too many healthy people at all, period.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "too many". But even if what Dennis was told to believe by some ignoramus on Facebook or Fox News is correct, so what?
Healthy people get vaccinated not only to protect themselves, but also to protect other people, especially those who aren't as healthy as they are. At least, that's what rational healthy people do.
I'd guess this is the 'freedom' thing Dennis is concerned about. Perhaps he has a point. I mean, why should I care about anyone else? Why should the Evil Gubmint (boo! hiss!) restrict my freedom to get drunk and drive my car at 150 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road if I want to? (Not that my old car could reach anywhere near 150mph, but you get my point.) It's tyranny, I tell you!
-
Denny Zartman writes:
QuoteWeird. It's almost like this is a subject that demands specialized knowledge and expertise.
Chris Barnard replies:
QuoteUnless of course the person with the specialised knowledge isn’t supporting your case. Then we should disregard it, right?!
Disregarding those experts who go against one's preconceived views is exactly what Chris has been doing.
Which experts should Chris believe? If expert opinion is evenly divided, Chris might be justified in tossing a coin and going with whichever opinion happens to reflect his view of the world.
But if, as in this case, expert opinion is overwhelmingly on one side, it is perverse and irrational for a non-expert to prefer the minority opinion.
The principle involved is very straightforward, but Chris doesn't seem to grasp it.
Paul Brancato writes:
QuoteAscertaining the level of expertise and or the trustworthiness of one expert or another is hard to do. I much admire RFK Jr for a lifetime of activism, and I remain convinced that he is right about mercury
RFK Jr's environmental activism is indeed praiseworthy, but that doesn't make him an expert on mercury or anything else to do with vaccination.
The majority of expert opinion strongly disagrees with RFK Jr about the safety of vaccination. Why should any non-expert side with him rather than the large majority of experts?
-
Excellent post, Kirk. Anti-vaxxers are not just misguided, they're selfish and potentially dangerous to others.
Speaking of misguided, Chris Barnard writes:
Quotethe majority of JFKA experts propagated by the media including wiki and factcheck sites are pushing the Oswald as the lone wolf story. Do you see the parallel?
No, because these people do not possess specialist knowledge that the rest of us do not possess. Isn't that obvious?
You don't need specialist scientific or technical knowledge to come to an informed opinion about any of the central areas of the JFK assassination debate. But you do, in the case of whether or not planes are capable of causing buildings to collapse, or whether or not vaccines are safe.
What's stopping Chris grasping this obvious point? Dennis Berube hasn't thought it through either:
QuoteYou faith in experts is touching, but unfortunately widely misguided. It would be like calling Posner and Mack JFK experts.
But Dennis has worked out why only a tiny proportion of medical professionals are worth listening to:
QuoteThe corporate propaganda spends almost all of its time ... to give the appearance of consensus ... The result is ... perfect propaganda.
the corporate paid media ... denigration ... demonized ... the maniacal push to inject everyone on the planet ... All at the expense of liberty.
It's all a big plot. There is no scientific consensus after all. It's just something constructed by the media in order to enslave us poor souls and harvest our precious bodily fluids, all for the benefit of our overlords.
I knew Bill Gates and the lizard people were involved! I was right all along!
Seriously, does Dennis really believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus about vaccination doesn't actually exist? That it's all just corporate propaganda?
It's not entirely clear whether Dennis means that the scientific consensus is an invention of corporate propaganda, or that the scientists and medical experts themselves have been brainwashed by corporate propaganda to mistakenly conclude that vaccines are safe. Either way, he surely doesn't believe any of that, does he?
Dennis continues:
QuoteIf you are so certain in your belief in the experts, then why engage on this topic at all?
For two reasons:
- To point out your error. Expert opinion is what decides whether or not vaccines should be considered safe. Expert opinion overwhelmingly does consider vaccines to be safe. Our two resident anti-vaxxers are making an obvious logical error in preferring the views of a small minority of experts over the views of a large majority of experts.
- Because this forum is about the JFK assassination, a serious subject that is harmed by being associated with anti-vaxxer propaganda. I don't know how many casual visitors this site gets, so the anti-vaxxer propaganda may not be a huge problem. But it does provide ammunition for those who want to portray critics of the lone-nut theory, and JFK assassination researchers in general, as a bunch of crackpots.
Chris writes:
Quotethere is a very easy, cost effective way to determine if vaccines (or which vaccines) are safe
Yes, it's called research. Plenty of it has been done, and the scientific consensus is that vaccines in general are very safe.
-
That long, uncritical interview is uncredited, but appears to be from an anti-vaxxer website. I'm not sure Chris is justified in using this forum, which is supposed to be about the JFK assassination, to spread anti-vaxxer propaganda.
If he is going to cover the vaccination debate, the least he could do is cover both sides of it, especially as the vast majority of medical opinion is opposed to the view he is putting forward.
In the interests of balance, here are some links to the majority expert opinion. Chris might benefit from finding out what the experts have to say.
General criticism of anti-vaxxer talking points:
- https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/
- https://www.businessinsider.com/lies-anti-vaxxers-spread-about-measles-vaccine-debunked-2019-1?r=US&IR=T
- https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/four-vaccine-myths-and-where-they-came
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597904/
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-13-covid-19-vaccine-myths
Criticism of RFK Jr's fact-twisting:
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/ (includes several blatant examples of RFK Jr's distortion of comments by scientists)
- https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr
Historical and political context of anti-vaxxer activity:
- https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vaccine-hesitancy-history-damage-anti-vaccination
- https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-anti-vax-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1125197/
The Rolling Stone article is a good account of how anti-vaxxer beliefs are linked to other current forms of irrationality in the US, and contains a sentence that might be aimed at Chris himself:
QuoteToday's anti-vax movement has grown increasingly cozy with theories about dark agendas, ruthless profit motives, and powerful enemies, reserving peculiar animus for billionaire Bill Gates, whose foundation promotes vaccination globally.
Why does Chris promote those anti-vaxxer beliefs on a JFK assassination website? Why does he promote them at all, given that they represent the views of a very small proportion of medical experts?
The principle here is obvious: if you aren't an expert, you do not have the ability to properly evaluate subjects that require expert knowledge. The only rational course of action for a non-expert like Chris (or me) is to reflect the balance of expert opinion.
Surely Chris accepts that a large majority of experts dismiss the claims of anti-vaxxers as unjustified. Chris, like me, doesn't have the expert knowledge required to evaluate the science properly for himself. So why does he not accept the conclusions of the large majority of experts?
-
Paul Bacon writes:
QuoteWell for God's sake Jeremy, become an expert!
Nice idea, Paul! But I don't think I could ever become an expert, what with having zero interest in structural engineering and similar subjects. And even if that changed I don't think I'd have sufficient time and funds to acquire a relevant degree or other professional qualification.
QuoteIt won't take more than a day's reading
I suspect it may take a little longer than that! What may seem obvious to a layman who has spent one day reading up on the subject might not seem obvious to a professional with years of experience. In this case, it clearly doesn't seem obvious to the majority of those professionals.
W. Niederhut writes:
QuotePeople who have studied the JFK assassination in depth know better than anyone how skillfully the CIA and their mainstream media (and social media) contractors have been able to suppress and distort the truth about black ops.
The media certainly distorts topics that affect institutional power, though it's debatable how much of that is due directly to arm-twisting by the CIA or similar organisations.
I think it's unlikely that distortions by the media have much to do with the lack of expert support for the idea that the towers were brought down by explosives. Plenty of 9/11 criticism does get through to the public, and hence to professional structural engineers and the like. These experts will be aware that criticism exists, and that it relates to an area of their professional expertise. They will know where to find this criticism if their expertise leads them to suspect that the official explanation is inadequate. Yet only a small proportion of them do seem to think that the official explanation is inadequate.
From the general public's point of view, the attacks offer a plausible example of cause and effect:
- planes crash into buildings;
- buildings collapse.
That makes sense to non-expert members of the public. As one of those non-experts, I'm aware of that example of cause and effect and of the fact that few experts seem to disagree with it. Like most members of the public, I'm also aware that regimes are capable of doing bad things, and that an inside job of some sort isn't impossible.
And as a JFK assassination enthusiast, I'm aware that an event like the 9/11 attacks is likely to generate plenty of anomalous items of evidence, which may seem sinister but which may have everyday explanations of which I'm currently unaware.
The question of whether or not the planes crashing into the buildings was sufficient to cause the buildings to collapse is not something I, as a non-expert member of the public, am able to decide for myself. Unless I become an expert, the only rational thing for me to do is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. It seems irrational to do otherwise.
On that subject, Chris's research methods have generated some attention elsewhere:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419p25-the-mullberry-bush#37117
-
Thanks for the response, W. Niederhut!
I'm sure you can understand why a non-expert like me might not put too much trust in the claim that the scientific evidence is settled. The non-expert thinks: well, it could have been an inside job, you wouldn't rule it out in theory, but if the scientific evidence really is as conclusive as this guy claims, you'd expect a large proportion of experts to support it, and only a small number appear to do so.
And anyone who's familiar with some of the claims made about the JFK assassination will apply more than a pinch of salt to a claim that the hijackers lived on after the attacks. Inside job: wouldn't put it past them; fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes: hmm, not so sure about that. I suspect the evidence is far from conclusive, but I'm willing to be persuaded.
Having said all that, I'm keeping an open mind, and I'll check out those links when I get the chance.
-
Chris Barnard writes:
Quoteyou obviously subscribe to the adage that “if a lie is told enough times, then it becomes truth”.
That remark was in response to my comment about ex-Dr Andrew Wakefield's research being flawed and that "expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism."
Which part of that comment contains the lie? That Wakefield's research was flawed, or that the balance of expert opinion is unfavourable to anti-vaxxers?
Perhaps Chris could explain why either or both of those statements is a lie. With luck, he'll use detailed evidence and nuanced argument, but I fear that all we'll get is the usual one-sentence talking points copied uncritically from some anti-vaxxer website.
Does Chris take seriously the idea that vaccines cause autism? Perhaps he does:
QuoteThe best bit is, you can’t answer why autism is listed as a potential side effect to the vaccine.
Yet another one-sentence talking point! Chris had already answered this one himself on page 16, when he wrote:
QuoteThe CDC website says in bold lettering, vaccines do not cause autism. But the disclaimer pamphlet with the vaccine lists autism as a potential side effect. The reason that is in there is so that the company making the shot can’t be sued.
Why would they need to pop that in the disclaimer?
Why? Obviously it's to keep the company's lawyers happy, in case some crazy anti-vaxxer tries to take the company to court. Note the use of the word 'potential'. I assume the company doesn't claim that its vaccine actually causes autism.
There's nothing suspicious about that pamphlet. Why did Chris even bring up that talking point, if not to suggest that the company was admitting that the vaccine might in fact cause autism?
Quotechildishness i’d expect of someone lacking education and intelligence ... I am wasting my time typing to someone that is frankly beneath me.
Someone with Chris's vast intellectual gifts shouldn't have any trouble making his points properly, by doing more than simply repeating one-sentence talking points from anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers.
What started all of this was Chris's preference for the views of a small minority of experts in the matter of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. I pointed out that it was irrational for a non-expert to take this approach to a question that requires expert knowledge.
Chris doesn't seem to have found anything objectionable about the point I made. Evidently he agrees with me: the non-expert would be mistaken to accept one particular view when the majority of experts think that view is wrong.
So why does he do it? I assume he has no expertise in architecture or structural engineering. Would he care to tell us why he rejects the opinions of the majority of the relevant experts?
Would Chris by any chance be picking and choosing which experts to believe based on whether or not they reflect his view of the world?
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteWhat it shows me is that you zero understanding of how big business works or, how foundations and charitable organisations are used as tools of vast influence and power.
I understand all of that, thank you. So it was Bill Gates after all, wasn't it? I knew it!
QuoteI have never even heard of this Wakefield you refer to. ... this Wakefield, is it the same one as above? I haven’t mentioned this person, I don’t know of this person. Yet, you seem to be trying attach him to my argument.
In your comment 445409 on page 16, you replied to my point about Wakefield's research being debunked. Your reply was:
QuoteHere is a question for you; how might you go about proving that to be the case and what parameters would you put in place to ensure its fair study?
I asked you to clarify what you meant by "proving that to be the case". Proving Wakefield's research was flawed? If that's what you meant, it has been done. I'd already given a link to the relevant article in the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.
Proving that vaccines cause autism? If that's what you meant, plenty of research has been done on that topic. Expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism.
On the subject of 9/11, Chris writes:
Quoteviews can be seen very easily in google searches, as the site ranks pretty highly
So you were actually trying to say that W. Niederhut doesn't want to provide evidence for his claim that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes" because it might come up if someone searches for his name. But he has made plenty of 9/11-related comments here. Why should that particular claim be so damaging to his online reputation?
His reluctance might in fact be due to his not having any strong evidence to support his claim, wouldn't you think? Nevertheless, if he does have any strong evidence, I'd be interested to see it, because it would go a long way towards undermining the official explanation.
QuoteIf you think I am going to spend hours reeling it all out for you on threads
All I was asking you to do was provide a bit more than simple one-sentence talking points. If you want someone to discuss a topic of your choice, you can't expect them to do all the work. You need to set out the evidence and all the relevant arguments, for and against, if only to persuade us that you are not simply regurgitating stuff from some truther's YouTube channel.
One point I've been making that you haven't yet replied to is that, when confronted by a topic that requires expert knowledge, the only rational approach for a non-expert is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This applies to vaccination as much as it does to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
Would you agree with that principle? If not, perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it. If you do agree with that principle, why do you not abide by it? Why do you align yourself with the opinions of a small minority of experts rather than the opinions of the large majority of experts?
-
Dennis Berube writes:
QuoteHe posts a very brief Guardian article and pairs it with the comment above. This is how freedom ends, allowing this mentality to win the day. People who have never been sick, who simply want to have medical freedom are now endangering society and must be locked up.
That's a strange interpretation of the newspaper article, which referred to a prominent anti-vaxxer who seemed to be encouraging people to physically attack medical staff. That's why the police got involved, not because she or anyone else didn't want to get vaccinated or wear a mask or whatever other threat to 'freedom' these people get worked up about.
I wrote:
QuoteWakefield tried to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and failed miserably.
Dennis replied:
QuoteGo ahead, get wikipedia’s slander story copied and pasted for us.
This may be the Wikipedia article Dennis is thinking of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
It's a pretty devastating account, fully referenced, of Wakefield's activities. As far as "slander" goes, Wakefield sued a journalist and the TV company who broadcast the journalist's documentary, for defamation. He failed, and had to pay his opponents' legal costs. Here's what the judge said about Wakefield:
Quote- Spread fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, even though he knew that his own laboratory had carried out tests whose results dramatically contradicted his claims in that the measles virus had not been found in a single one of the children concerned in his study and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no basis at all for his belief that the MMR should be broken up into single vaccines.
- In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune.
- Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness.
- Improperly and/or dishonestly failed to disclose to his colleagues and to the public at large that his research on autistic children had begun with a contract with solicitors which were trying to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.
- Improperly and/or dishonestly lent his reputation to the International Child Development Resource Centre which promoted to very vulnerable parents expensive products for whose efficacy (as he knew or should have known) there was no scientific evidence.
(Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/2410.html)
There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that no good evidence exists for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
QuoteBtw, what does your doctor think about the magneto protein?
Magneto protein, eh? That sounds all sciencey-like, doesn't it? You've convinced me! The medical profession is wrong, and the bleach drinkers are right!
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteIt was in interests of vaccine safety and it proposed a direct comparison of data between two groups, those without vaccine and those with.
Again, what's the significance of this? Are you absolutely sure Bill Gates isn't involved?
QuoteHere is a question for you; how might you go about proving that to be the case and what parameters would you put in place to ensure its fair study?
Proving what to be the case? Wakefield tried to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and failed miserably. What is it that you think needs to be proved, and why?
QuoteThe MSM have been suggesting a lot since March 2020. ... If there is institutional corruption, which is being alleged here, and I think you can understand that the MSM is only running one side of it, then you’ll only hear one side of it. Do you understand?
The mainstream media, at least in Britain, has run its fair share of anti-vaxxer misinformation. I don't read the Daily Mail, but I do read about the Daily Mail, which under its previous editor supported the anti-vaxxer fraud Andrew Wakefield:
For the benefit of non-UK readers who aren't familiar with the Daily Mail, the paper was a big fan of that nice Mr Hitler some years ago, and isn't much better now:
https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2017/10/horrible-history-daily-mail/
QuoteFYI the majority views are supported by know nothing actors and celebrities too, right?
I'm sure they are. But, as Denny pointed out, your fellow anti-vaxxer preferred to get his information from unqualified alleged celebrities rather than directly from qualified medical professionals.
When one has a choice of who to believe, the non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion, surely? Have I got this principle wrong? If I haven't, why do you insist on believing the small minority of experts over the large majority of experts?
QuoteI don’t think W wants to talk about it. That might be because of the SEO on the site and google search listings, I have no idea.
He doesn't want to talk about it because of this site's search engine rankings? For one thing, whatever he says wouldn't have a noticeable effect on any of this site's search engine rankings. For another, what sort of reason is that for not providing evidence and argument to support the claim he made?
W. Niederhut claimed on page 14 that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes". It's quite a claim to make, because if it's true it leaves a gaping hole in the official explanation. If it's not true, of course, it leaves a gaping hole in W. Niederhut's credibility.
I could understand if he hasn't provided the necessary evidence because he's been busy, or he has been taken ill, or his internet connection has gone down, or he has been abducted by creatures from the planet Tharg. But otherwise, you'd expect him to be keen to justify the statement he made. I'm starting to suspect that there probably isn't any solid evidence that any of the hijackers lived on after 9/11. Do you get that impression too?
QuoteLet me ask you, do you think passports of the hijackers could be found in the top surface of the rubble, in tact? ... Do you think, as the record states, a plane traveling at 536mph (Boeing 757) could make a last minute right angle turn at ground level before striking the east wing of the Pentagon?
Again with the one-sentence truther talking points! You're the one who brought up these allegations, which you seem to think are deadly to the official explanation. It's up to you to demonstrate why that should be the case. Perhaps you could set out the evidence and the arguments for and against, in detail, and show us how conclusive these talking points really are. They belong in the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category, don't they?
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteThat’s actually false. A very well meaning Dr has tried to put this through congress twice and its been rejected. I mean having unvaxxed vs vaxxed study groups to determine causality.
Do you mean that a doctor suggested that a controlled study be carried out, and his suggestion was refused? If that's what you're getting at, I'm not sure what the significance is. Would it by any chance have something to do with a deep-state conspiracy, run by Bill Gates from a pizza joint in Washington, to hide the awful truth about vaccines?
QuoteThe data produced regarding that claim regarding MMR, and autism didn’t prove the vaccine doesn’t cause autism but, it was used as deflection.
The data that Wakefield came up with was intended to prove the opposite: that the MMR vaccine caused autism. As it turns out, the data was so poor that it didn't prove anything except that Wakefield was a fraud. The data shows that the original claim was unfounded.
QuoteIt’s almost like you are completely unaware that people who have had both shots are catching the virus, spreading the virus and are dying of the virus.
It's common knowledge that the Covid vaccines aren't 100% effective. Some vaccinated people will still catch the virus, spread it, and die from it. The point is explained here:
That article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. The moral of the story: if you've got any sense, get yourself vaccinated, for your own sake and the sake of others.
Admittedly, the authors of the article are only professional statisticians, not know-nothing actors or know-nothing TV producers. With luck, the article will be peer-reviewed by a learned committee of know-nothing bus drivers, know-nothing advertising executives, and know-nothing burger-flippers. Then perhaps the message may get through to the anti-vaxxer idiots who endanger themselves and the rest of us.
Regarding 9/11, Chris writes:
QuoteWhat about the very qualified people who say 'inside job' ? How do you decide which qualified people to listen to? Do you do it on volume? Have a count up?
As I've pointed out, you have to reflect the balance of expert opinion, if you are not an expert yourself. It's irrational to pick and choose which experts to believe according to whether or not they reflect your personal view of the world.
Only a small proportion of the relevant experts have claimed that the towers could not have collapsed merely because the planes hit them. I don't know the figures, but I'd guess that the proportion of medical professionals who think mass vaccination is a dangerous plot is, if anything, even smaller. When, as in these cases, expert opinion is heavily weighted in one direction, it's irrational for a non-expert to prefer the small minority. Even if the minority's views are endorsed by know-nothing actors and TV producers.
I really can't take seriously the idea that a large number of professionally qualified people would be afraid to speak out on either 9/11 or vaccination, if the evidence against the official positions really is as strong as you make it out to be.
Quoteonly one needs proving to collapse the 9/11 commission
Hence the quantity-over-quality list of regurgitated one-sentence truther talking points.
How many of them have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt? W. Niederhut's claim that some of the hijackers were still alive and well after the attacks, for example, would indeed be devastating to the official account. Has that one been proved beyond doubt? From W. Niederhut's lack of a response, I'd guess not.
How many other truther talking points fall into the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category? Any complex collection of evidence is likely to contain incongruous, anomalous items. The JFK assassination is a good example of this, and people have tried the same fruitless quantity-over-quality approach here too.
QuoteYou seem not to have addressed some of my points, like Flight 77 and the Pentagon and the cellular phone calls. Would you care to in the spirit of this back and forth?
Those are two items in your list of one-sentence truther talking points. From the information you've provided, there's very little to discuss. In each case, what is the evidence, exactly? How reliable is the source? What is the conspiratorial explanation of the evidence? Is there an alternative explanation? If so, what does it say, and what does it get wrong? If the conspiratorial argument in each case leaves any room for doubt, why should we believe it?
-
Denny Zartman writes:
QuoteI have also heard anti-vaxxers claim vaccines cause Autism. I don't necessarily automatically believe everything I hear from anti-vaxxers. In fact, the virulence of their opposition to vaccines combined with their lack of medical/scientific expertise on the subject causes me to be skeptical of them more often than not.
Chris Barnard replies:
QuoteThe argument of those alleging some vaccine or a vaccine is causing autism is very simple. All they are asking is that the government releases the data ... They say, show us the date and it either kills or vindicates our argument. ... And it puts the situation to bed. But, the government will not release the data.
As far as the original claim goes that the MMR vaccine caused autism, the data has been available for more than a decade. The data shows no link at all.
Mr (formerly Dr, but he got struck off) Andrew Wakefield, who conducted the original 'research', comes across as an unscrupulous money-grubber. His 'research' was described by the British Medical Journal as "an elaborate fraud" that involved "falsification of data". It makes Luis Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment look respectable.
The British Medical Journal provides readable accounts of this scandal here:
One advantage the 9/11 truthers have over the anti-vaxxers is that at least they aren't responsible for the spread of preventable diseases or for thousands of avoidable deaths.
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteThe issue is, we don’t know how the building was brought down, the mechanics of it, unless we subscribe to the planes and jet fuel being enough.
The 'planes and jet fuel' explanation seems to be accepted by a large majority of the relevant experts. As I pointed out earlier, the rational non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion in matters that require technical expertise.
QuoteIt looks like a controlled demolition, but, we’re also not privy to the tech that the Pentagon has in its repertoire.
What it looks like to a non-expert doesn't mean much. See my previous remark.
QuoteJust touching on the SBD and Ozzie, the public were still left thinking; why didn’t he take the much easier shot as JFK was coming at him, basically unmissable.
Indeed. Stand back from the window so your face won't be seen, take the easy shot, and dash down the stairs before anyone works out where the shot came from. Not that Oswald is likely to have been on the sixth floor at the time.
QuoteRegarding the plausibility, there are multiple witnesses who claimed hearing a series of explosions
Maybe they did, but you'd think plenty of people in the World Trade Center during the days leading up to the attack would have noticed piles of explosives or people cutting into steel joists. Two towers, each around 90 storeys high: that's a lot of joists that need to be weakened.
Note to Paul Bacon: I'm sure I read somewhere (from a pro- or anti-truther source, I can't remember which) that some or most or all of the joists must have been weakened by partial cutting, in order for the explosives to bring the buildings down. This sounds like another question for experts to decide.
QuoteThe lack of whistleblowers or experts speaking out is the easiest thing to explain. ... social and possibly career suicide ... the consequence to you and family for speaking out.
There must be an awful lot of qualified architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and other people with the professional skills to evaluate the collapse of the towers. The vast majority of them have failed to go public with doubts about the official explanation. I suppose it's possible that tens or hundreds of thousands of people were threatened with career suicide or worse, but it isn't very likely, is it?
Quotesome guy in Saudi Arabia whose photo and name was attached, went to lawyers to protect himself and claim mistaken identity. ... Regarding the hijackers, what W.N said is true, as far as I can verify it.
So you agree with W. Niederhut that the hijackers, or at least some of them, did actually live on after the attacks? Presumably you also agree with his suggestion that the planes were piloted remotely?
The notion of an inside job that involved actual hijackers actually hijacking the planes and actually flying them into the buildings, actually killing themselves in the process, but doing so on behalf of shadowy US government entities, sounds possible, if unlikely. But the notion of an inside job that involved fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes sounds very unlikely indeed, at least to me. It seems like the 9/11 equivalent of Lifton's body-alteration speculation, or the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger speculation.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the evidence is for W. Niederhut's claim. I suspect it's nowhere near as conclusive as he thinks it is, which would cast doubt on at least some of his other claims. But I'm open to persuasion. What is the evidence, W. Niederhut?
QuoteRegarding Ozzie on the steps, they would have switched plans.
Only if the plan was to have Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting. But the lone-nut scenario appears to have been a post facto device to contain public dissatisfaction with political institutions, rather than a part of any original plan. Not every incongruous fact need be incorporated, square-peg-like, into a conspiracy theory. That applies to 9/11 just as much as to the JFK assassination.
Sorry to interject with so much JFK stuff on a JFK forum, but the possibility that clear images might exist of Oswald somewhere other than on the sixth floor and with no rifle in sight, represents the best current possibility of a breakthrough in the case. The figure in the images we have may well turn out not to be Oswald, of course, but given that the figure does look somewhat like him, and that his own account ("went outside to watch the p. parade") is consistent with what we see, getting hold of good quality versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films is worth doing. And it's a lot more worthwhile than speculating about all the photographs and home movies being faked, which some people waste their time doing. Anyway, rant over.
QuoteI think, well where have we seen this coincidence before? Oh yeh, on 7/7 when London was bombed, the British government had anti-terror people carrying out drills in some of the very stations that were bombed, a minister batted it off as coincidence.
I'd imagine that most people would claim it was a coincidence, since anti-terror drills aren't especially rare occurrences.
Do you really think the bombings in London were an inside job? If so, what evidence is there apart from an anti-terror drill possibly happening on the same day?
Quote3.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget ... ton of insider trading on 9/11, before and during the attacks ... a passport in the rubble ... Not one bit of footage of the hijackers in the airports ... it only takes on of these things to debunk the 9/11 commission.
You get plenty of this sort of vaguely suspicious activity in the JFK assassination story too. The three tramps in Dealey Plaza, for example. They might be gunmen! They might be generals or senior CIA officers! Alternatively, they might just be tramps.
The thing is, all of this sort of stuff can be discarded from the JFK assassination and you'd still be able to make a plausible case that the event involved more than one gunman. But with 9/11, if you discard the vaguely suspicious stuff, there doesn't seem to be anything solid left.
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuoteIf those parties are ok with thousands or millions dying in a conflict, why would they bat an eye lid when 3k Americans die in 9/11 if there was massive potential for profit. Its the same thing, killing your troops and the citizens of another country abroad, or killing 3k people at home. Why would they care?
The PNAC types who were waiting for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan do seem to have been the sort of people who would have happily sacrificed the thousands of people who worked in the World Trade Center. But just because they could have intentionally killed those people, doesn't mean they did kill those people.
The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan.
On the other hand, making use of the helpful physical features of the book depository and Dealey Plaza in order to carry out a shooting, while having some risk of discovery, doesn't seem beyond the bounds of plausibility at all.
There were three things that led me to dismiss the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, when I first looked into it years ago:
- The implausibility of blowing up the buildings.
- The very limited amount of support among qualified engineers, architects, and so on, for the technical argument that the buildings were blown up.
- Preposterous-sounding claims, such as W. Niederhut's statement that the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11".
By 'preposterous', I mean that if the evidence was strong enough for the fact to be "known", that evidence would surely be common knowledge by now.
To give another JFK comparison, if high-quality versions of the Darnell or Weigman films came to light which showed beyond any doubt that Oswald was standing on the TSBD steps, it would be impossible for that fact to be suppressed. Even if the mass media ignored it at first, many thousands of individuals would share the images over the internet, it would be reported in the fringe media, and eventually commentators in the mainstream media would be unable to ignore it. The same should have happened to the evidence that W. Niederhut finds convincing.
Since it isn't common knowledge that some of the hijackers lived on, the claim sounds preposterous. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, if someone can produce incontrovertible evidence for that claim.
-
Chris Barnard writes:
QuotePlenty of people waved British flags with pride before a concerted media campaign to make anyone that did it a pariah, simpleton or fascist nut. Why would the media do that? It may have something to do with Britain and many other nations being corralled into a European Federalist block, that was funding academia and news in those countries.
I'm not aware of a "concerted media campaign" against flag-waving in Britain. If anything, the opposite is true: whenever there's some royal event or anniversary, or when England are playing in the World Cup, the newspapers encourage people to get the flags out. Not only that, but the newspapers sometimes even supply the flags!
As for the notion that the European Union discouraged national flag-waving through its funding of the UK media, that sounds a tad unlikely, mainly because almost all of the UK media is owned by individuals and institutions who are very much opposed to the EU. Flag-waving was quite popular in certain parts of Europe around 80 years ago, but not so much now, for some reason that has little to do with EU diktats.
The point I was making about flag-waving is that the prevalence of national flags in the US doesn't imply that Americans are likely to accept the official line on 9/11. If people mostly accept the official line, it's surely because the alternative is inherently implausible, not because people have been conditioned to believe everything they are told. We know that the general population is capable of distrusting official explanations of events, because they do so in the case of the JFK assassination. The widespread distrust of the official line is due to the plausibility of the alternative, which isn't the case with 9/11.
QuoteWith mentioning Fox, you’re assuming one side is the righteous one, we’re back to the good vs evil narrative.
I wasn't assuming that. I used Fox as an example of propaganda that encourages people to doubt official information rather than accept it.
QuoteCNN is as important as FOX. Without FOX, the public will treat the remaining networks with greater scrutiny and suspicion.
That's a good point. One important effect of the Fox News insanity is that it makes the rest of the corporate media look vaguely respectable.
QuoteThink about the following effects that resulted from 9/11: America suddenly had a gold pass to enter any country in the middle east or islamic world ... [various corporations] got a pass to milk the tax payers of The USA for 20 years ... The Pentagon / Govt gets the Patriot Act and the biggest data capture in history begins
All of those effects are true, but their existence doesn't require that 9/11 was an inside job. Terrorism and other emergencies have been used by regimes all over the world as an excuse to do the same sorts of things the US government did after 9/11.
QuoteLet me ask you a question, if we provide you with scenarios that are impossible, or against logic or all probability regarding 9/11 and the evidence points toward the state, like many think it does with the JFKA, will you accept 9/11 was carried our by some other guys than the ones in the 9/11 report?
Yes, of course! If there is any incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I'd be happy to accept it, just as I'd be happy to accept the lone-nut interpretation of the JFK assassination if incontrovertible evidence existed.
The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there is no incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (or, for that matter, that Oswald shot JFK, with or without assistance). For example, the technical arguments that we've been given by W. Niederhut don't seem to be widely accepted by those with the technical knowledge to evaluate them. In the absence of majority expert opinion, that evidence isn't worth much to a non-expert.
One item of evidence that would be convincing is W. Niederhut's claim that "many of them [the hijackers] were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes." If that's the case, then the official account must be wrong.
Unfortunately, anyone who is familiar with the JFK assassination knows that these sorts of claims invariably turn out to be rather less watertight than they are made out to be: Oswald buying trucks in New Orleans when he was actually in Minsk, for example. The result is that the person making the far-fetched claim ends up looking like a ... how shall I put it? ... unreliable source of information, and people start to doubt everything else that person says.
Could W. Niederhut tell us what the evidence is for those hijackers being alive after 9/11?
How to debunk the George Hickey theory?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Denise Hazelwood writes:
In other words, it's just the usual parade of visual anomalies that anyone can find in poor-quality copies of the film, or in the photos and films of the moon landings, for that matter.
Does Denise's video provide an explanation of how these apparent anomalies might actually have been generated by a specific film-faking process? Or does she just list them, scratch her head, and declare the film to be altered?
Does her video answer any of the obvious questions, such as:
For decades, people have been pointing to apparent anomalies in the Zapruder film and declaring it to be fake, only to discover that perfectly reasonable explanations exist for those anomalies, as Josiah Thompson explains:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html