• A Believer Playing Games...

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 13 08:27:15 2024
    Taken from the Education Forum:

    True substantive alteration would be refutable by other media; while
    I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of: a)
    other media, b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself, c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to
    the Z-film, d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration, and e)
    nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely
    proves the Z-film is wrong.


    Here's the same snippet with my commentary:


    True substantive alteration would be refutable by other media;


    The presumption here is that we *have* any other media that has not
    first gone through the very people who altered the extant Z-film.

    So clearly, this believer is *beginning* with a logical fallacy... and
    we know if you BEGIN with a logical fallacy, things won't get any
    better...


    while I'm open to substantive Z-alteration I'm skeptical because of:


    How many times have we heard this? It is, of course, simply a lie.
    Were it true in any sense of the word, this believer would publicly
    acknowledge at least *SOME* of the evdence for alteration. Instead,
    he rejects ALL of it.


    a) other media,


    Produce it. Media that has **NOT** gone through any other channels...

    Can't be done.


    b) the early proliferation of the Z-film itself,


    Amusingly, this is evidence for alteration. The earliest viewers of
    the film DESCRIBED A DIFFERENT FILM. Dan Rather, for example.

    That this believer cannot publicly acknowledge this as true shows his
    true colors.


    c) the technical capacity in 1963 to make timely substantive alterations to the Z-film,


    You don't *know* these techncal capacities... and those who did,
    dispute you.


    d) no clear and evident purpose in the alteration,


    This one statement shows the STUPIDITY of believers... The purpose
    was clear - to pin the blame on **ONE** person... rather than show the
    proof that this was a conspiracy.


    and e) nothing from other sources (witnesses and evidence) that absolutely proves the Z-film is wrong.


    What *YOU* would require as "proof" isn't what the average persoin
    will accept.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)