Jump to content
The Education Forum

Altering the Z film


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Jeremy, your response unfortunately tells me that you do not research/study/seek truth in earnest.  You simply look for confirmation of your preconceived convictions.  You then cite these confirmations which are acceptable to you because they are within the mainstream of thought.  If the majority believes it, it must be true, right?  More often than not your responses contain none of the proof you ask of those who question you. 

On this question, I will not take your bait and try to create derision in place of discussion.  I read and process most all postings on this forum seeking information.  My simple rule is:  1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”  I presume that you will be familiar with where this comes from and it will allow you to further categorize me into one of your "bins".  In order to separate/divide people, you must do this.  My best to you.  I will continue to read and study posts on the forum to accumulate new information, opinions and ideas.  I hope you will as well.  Just stop grading everyone else by your scale and then denigrating them when they don't measure up (we all have opinions & scales).  Trying to make someone else's ideas small does not make yours LARGE (or correct).  Now, lets get back on topic and quit commenting on each other.

Amen.

It's possible to disagree without resorting to ridicule. I would suggest that ALL members of this forum not only remember this, but practice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

41 minutes ago, John Butler said:

If you look closely at the shape of the pedestal, Sitzman's feet are closer to the front of the pedestal than Zapruder's feet.  That can be seen in any of the examples posted.  

I think most would call the side of the pedestal facing east the side of the pedestal, and not the front. The front of the pedestal, to my way of thinking, would be the side facing directly across the plaza. That side is to the right of Zapruder's right leg in Willis. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I think most would call the side of the pedestal facing east the side of the pedestal, and not the front. The front of the pedestal, to my way of thinking, would be the side facing directly across the plaza. That side is to the right of Zapruder's right leg in Willis. 

 

Pat,I was definately talking about the side.The east side when I said front,so not to be confused with going backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

It's possible to disagree without resorting to ridicule. I would suggest that ALL members of this forum not only remember this, but practice it.

Thank you Mark.  It does make for much more enjoyable and easier study to not have to traipse through the weeds and mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight writes:

Quote

It's possible to disagree without resorting to ridicule.

Sorry, Mark! But sometimes humour is appropriate. The JFK assassination is a serious topic, unlike faked moon landings, faked films, faked Oswalds, and faked trees on the grassy knoll. This sort of stuff reinforces the media's line that anyone who questions the lone-nut theory is an irrational 'conspiracy theorist', in the propaganda sense of the term.

It's better to laugh at the far-out stuff than have the assassination itself turned into a subject of ridicule in the minds of any rational outsiders who happen to visit this forum.

If the JFK assassination is ever going to get treated seriously by the authorities, it needs the support of the general public. The 'everything is a fake' sub-culture is liable to alienate the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sorry, Mark! But sometimes humour is appropriate.

 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's better to laugh at the far-out stuff than have the assassination itself turned into a subject of ridicule in the minds of any rational outsiders who happen to visit this forum.

I don't believe you are humorous at all.  I believe you are dead serious in countering the arguments of people you disagree with.  Instead of humor your writings are more in tune with other things, perhaps those listed below.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label.

Change the Subject

Find a way to sidetrack the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic, and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts

Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist.

Deny, Deny, Deny

No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable.

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...