Best Propaganda Video

[John Simkin]

This is probably the best propaganda broadcasts I have seen. Is there anyone willing to argue against the logic contained in this presentation? Do you think it is possible to produce a similar video on the JFK assassination?

http://www.slide.com/r/Gt1XEgla2j_GCstDCRniPQi_-REnv1ko

[Tim Gratz]

John, it would be a great idea to put together a video on the JFK case and make it available for free via the Internet.

Of course there are production and editing costs which can be substantial--unless it is just a "talking head" discussing the evidence and the failures of the investigations.

[John Simkin]

John, it would be a great idea to put together a video on the JFK case and make it available for free via the Internet.

Of course there are production and editing costs which can be substantial--unless it is just a "talking head" discussing the evidence and the failures of the investigations.

That is the point I am making. The video is a talking head. Did you actually look at the video (it is an attack on the policies of George Bush - probably a bigger disaster than the invasion of Iraq) or is this another excuse to plant yourself at the end of this thread.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I would reply to your question but then that would be putting me at the end of a thread again.

[John Simkin]

John, I would reply to your question but then that would be putting me at the end of a thread again.

Of course that is what you have done. Please leave this thread alone.

[Mark Johansson]

This is probably the best propaganda broadcasts I have seen. Is there anyone willing to argue against the logic contained in this presentation? Do you think it is possible to produce a similar video on the JFK assassination?

http://www.slide.com/r/Gt1XEgla2j_GCstDCRniPQi_-REnv1ko

The end conclusion of this video is "Spread the word!"

But which word do you want to be spread on the JFK assassination?

Wim

[Mark Knight]

Actually, there ARE some good videos out there...such as the Pat Speer videos on the gunshot wounds, for example.

I'm just afraid that, if we began combining the best evidence into one large video...we might have something approaching--if not surpassing--the length of the ROOTS miniseries, which would make the information just too much for the masses to even attempt to see and digest.

TMWKK was an earlier attempt at this very thing...and after all those hours of programming, it STILL only touches the tip of the iceberg as far as the information concerning the JFK assassination is concerned.

[Cliff Varnell]

Actually, there ARE some good videos out there...such as the Pat Speer videos on the gunshot wounds, for example.

Except that Pat Speer has no clue where the wound in the back

was located, and doesn't seem to "get" the throat wound either.

Anyone who treats the final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal

document should find another hobby, imo.

[David G. Healy]

Frankly I think the best is yet to come. Consider the forthcoming Bugliosi Reclaiming History HBO special (one of a ten part series produced by Tom Hanks).... complete with unflinching support for the WCR. Not to mention endless diatribe concerning those that disagree with the entire WCR/SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome effort

[Pat Speer]

This is probably the best propaganda broadcasts I have seen. Is there anyone willing to argue against the logic contained in this presentation? Do you think it is possible to produce a similar video on the JFK assassination?

http://www.slide.com/r/Gt1XEgla2j_GCstDCRniPQi_-REnv1ko

There is, actually, an error in his argument. He lays out 4 possibilities and treats them as if they are rolls of the dice, equally likely. If one grants this is true, then his "better safe than sorry" argument makes sense. In the eyes of the scientists arguing about this, however, they are not equally likely, and one seems more likely than the other. I believe we should keep our eyes wide open. If our behavior is causing global warming, the trend will continue, and accelerate as large blocks of ice break off from the poles. All reports indicate this is happening. Antarctica is melting way ahead of anyone's expectations. We should act therefore under the assumption global warming is a fact, but be prepared to change policy should it appear the warming trend is unrelated to our activities.

I guess I have a problem with "better safe than sorry" arguments in general. I heard this argument a lot growing up by people trying to explain why they "believed" in God. Since that time I've heard it as a rationalization for the "war on terror" etc. If one possibility is slightly likely, and one possibility is highly likely, the "better safe than sorry" argument is a tragic mistake. One should not build a giant net above the earth in order to catch a falling star, although the "better safe than sorry" argument suggests one should. One should not invade a sovereign nation that "may" have a nuclear program, although the "better safe than sorry" argument suggests one should.

[John Simkin]

There is, actually, an error in his argument. He lays out 4 possibilities and treats them as if they are rolls of the dice, equally likely. If one grants this is true, then his "better safe than sorry" argument makes sense. In the eyes of the scientists arguing about this, however, they are not equally likely, and one seems more likely than the other. I believe we should keep our eyes wide open. If our behavior is causing global warming, the trend will continue, and accelerate as large blocks of ice break off from the poles. All reports indicate this is happening. Antarctica is melting way ahead of anyone's expectations. We should act therefore under the assumption global warming is a fact, but be prepared to change policy should it appear the warming trend is unrelated to our activities.

Good point. However, some argue that it would actually be good for the world economy if we took the necessary precautions. However, economics does not work like that. Capitalism is driven by people trying to maximise their profits in the shortest amount of time possible. The same is true of politics. This is the major flaw in democracy. It is not in the self-interest of politicians to plan in the long-term. They only care what is going to happen over the next four years.

One thing is clear, the major nations, especially USA, China and India need to work together over global warning. That, I suspect, is an impossible task. It would work if we faced a short-term danger, for example, an attack from aliens. But it would take great leadership to work together over a long-term project like global warming. There is no evidence that political leaders like this do not exist, especially not in the super-powers.