Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Great Fetzer/Thompson Zapruder Debate Hoax


Recommended Posts

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Just what we need...another nut!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just what we need...another nut!!"

Denis most of my posts on this forum predate your August 2007 post where you describe yourself as a "newbie". If you could read those previous posts, you may find most of them are quite measured and rational. I would have appreciated the first response to my post from you be of a little more substance rather than an ad hominem attack on my mental status. How about something more substantive or was it your purpose merely to broadcast a condemning statement to a larger audience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Jason...a novel theory, but by association you imply that David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, Jack White, Rich DellaRosa

and David Healy are co-conspirators in this propaganda ploy. I can assure you that is not the case. It is a case of Thompson

repeatedly posting false/adhominem charges and Fetzer defending the truth after each attack. Each posted message by Fetzer

has been reviewed by the named group beforehand for accuracy. Thompson attacks, Fetzer defends. It is no hoax.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just what we need...another nut!!"

Denis most of my posts on this forum predate your August 2007 post where you describe yourself as a "newbie". If you could read those previous posts, you may find most of them are quite measured and rational. I would have appreciated the first response to my post from you be of a little more substance rather than an ad hominem attack on my mental status. How about something more substantive or was it your purpose merely to broadcast a condemning statement to a larger audience?

Well let's review the situation after a long absence you turn up again and propose a far fetched theory which smacks of acute paranoia (even by the standards of a CT forum) for which you offer no supporting evidence. To top it off you start off with a totally irrelevant reference to the ultimate bogyman and prove incapable of 2nd grade math (8000 / 50 = 40), so what do you expect?

I've dealt with both of them for years and greatly respect one and consider the other a crank, however I've seen no evidence that either aren't anything but stubborn men overly obsessed with this issue. I also imagine that if it weren't for them and their allies a lot more people would believe LHO did it all by himself.

Jack wrote: "It is a case of Thompson repeatedly posting false/adhominem charges and Fetzer defending the truth after each attack."

An absurd mischaracterization of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances. Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you? Is it because you are so solidly in line with one camp in particular. I guess I'd be upset too if I started to think my allegiances were the possible result of a manipulation. You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances. Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you? Is it because you are so solidly in line with one camp in particular. I guess I'd be upset too if I started to think my allegiances were the possible result of a manipulation. You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.

Jason, have you ever been a part of either of the two groups involved? Are you or have you been privvy to the provate conversations of either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Jason...a novel theory, but by association you imply that David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, Jack White, Rich DellaRosa

and David Healy are co-conspirators in this propaganda ploy. I can assure you that is not the case. It is a case of Thompson

repeatedly posting false/adhominem charges and Fetzer defending the truth after each attack. Each posted message by Fetzer

has been reviewed by the named group beforehand for accuracy. Thompson attacks, Fetzer defends. It is no hoax.

Jack

There IS no defence, and thats the crux of your intellectual dishonesty. Your Moorman study is flawed, you created a LOS that does not exist in Moorman yet you and your horde continue to pimp this discredited theory. Maybe Jason is correct. You guys are foisting propoganda on the unsuspecting public!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances. Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you? Is it because you are so solidly in line with one camp in particular. I guess I'd be upset too if I started to think my allegiances were the possible result of a manipulation. You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.

Jason, have you ever been a part of either of the two groups involved? Are you or have you been privvy to the provate conversations of either?

Craig, I witnessed the debate first hand on just one of the forums but did not participate in the specific experiments done by each team designed to bolster their theory. I suggested and then constructed a statistical methodology for analysing the variance of the lines of sight so that one might find the most statistically likely position of Moorman. I suggested a more neutral approach. That being said, this was not agreed upon by any of the members so as I was not involved I did not hear the private conversations of either group. Hearing or not hearing these conversations I assume will impact the level of credence you give to the above theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, you deserve some sort of prize! I've learned to have a pretty tough skin for brickbats but your latest wins the prize. You claim that Fetzer and I are cooperating in some devious plot to propogandize somebody. The problem here is that cooperation with Fetzer is essential to your theory and cooperation with Fetzer is impossible for anyone. Just ask the co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who Fetzer excommunicated after a few months of being co-sponsors together.

Let me say with great simplicity that I take offense at your claim that there are any similarities between Fetzer's way of argument and my own. There aren't. If you would take the time to examine more carefully the actual posts made, I believe you would see this. I would agree, however, that at certain times I do lose my patience with Fetzer's outrageous duck-and-cover moves, and, on those occasions, I blast him. Hence, your point about mutual ad hominem attacks is not without some merit. Otherwise, what you're saying is basically silly.

Josiah Thompson

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite your protests Dr Thompson, you failed to address that I allowed for the fact that your and Dr. Fetzer might not be working together although the appearance and timing of your back and forth posts often looked suspicious. It was almost as if someone was alerting you to his posts with certain buzzwords and vice versa. If you had read further, you would have noted that I indicated sometimes this process involves bringing two enemies together. If "enemies" is to strong of a word then let's use something more akin to "polar opposites". Something similar to the way Jerry Springer brings in groups or individuals with characteristics that will promote eventual conflict on air.

As far as you taking offense to the claim that there are similarities to the way you and Fetzer argue, I would encourage you to consider that you yourself outlined a similarity a mere three sentences or so later. Ad hominem attacks. Just as you have also used duck and cover attack methods on the Lancer forum regarding Fetzer, Fetzer himself has attacked you on JFKresearch - even going so far as to outline episodes of previous personal relationship problems you've had. His justification is that you have done the same. So yes, there are a number of ways the both of you interact that are very similar to me and I HAVE been reading the arguments over the years Josiah. A lot of us have.

Do you deny that there are two "camps" with regards to the Zapruder film and claims of alteration? Can you remember when and how this began?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances.

Sorry rampant speculation does not equal evidence. For those of us who don't operate on your wave length can you point to specific examples of "similarities between" what they've done and "what is employed by propogandists"? "Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments" are not only employed by prpogandists but by many poster where controversial topics are discussed and debated even you (the latter two at least). You seem to be intent on sowing discord perhaps YOU are a disinfo agent! :lol:

Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you?

Why should the obvious irritate anyone? No one denies a lot of people get pissed of about this

You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.

Read what I wrote again

You said to Tink: "It was almost as if someone was alerting you to his posts with certain buzzwords and vice versa"

You seem to be unaware that this forum has a feature which sends you an e-mail every time a new post is made on threads you select and of course some e-mail programs advise you when "you've got mail"

EDIT - typos

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may help Len...They are explained in more detail at this particular site but it's not limited to these tactics. Obviously there are more 'black methods' of propoganda such as falsely planting information that's supposed to be attributable to one source when it really comes from another. You should no my intent is NOT to sow discord. Quite the opposite really. I denounced this years ago and I do so today. Regarding the email or IM when someone responds to your post. That does happen on this forum. Fetzer and Thompson would have to indicate how they were getting their alerts years ago.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party'.

Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.

Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.

Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.

Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.

Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.

Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.

Do you see anything familiar here? And this was how many years ago?

Edited by Jason Vermeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you deny that there are two "camps" with regards to the Zapruder film and claims of alteration? Can you remember when and how this began?

I'm not a betting person as a rule but I'd be willing to wage that the 2 "camps" were created when the theory first was publicized. I think that believing pro or con is just going happen when someone offers an idea to you, and I just don't see it as a grand plan.

Your post about propaganda methods could apply to many debates here.

The worst part of this is, and I don't care what side of the fence one is on, you are saying that folks( note:no quantifiers) are victims of these methods and make up their minds because of the methodology used. By saying this, you are taking away those folks' ability to think for themselves, and whatever way they respond to a position is suspect, because the thought they convey is not truly theirs. I disagree strongly. We don't all see the same, but I think that most of us do think for ourselves, and we relish discussing what we believe.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...