If the film hasn't been altered, why all these discrepancies? You
also cannot prove there has not been alteration.
Witnesses get stuff wrong sometimes. In real life, witnesses get stuff
wrong far, far more often than films are altered.
Quite true in general... but has nothing to do with specific cases.
That, until
alteration is proven, is why there are discrepancies.
No. There's no relationship whatsoever.
And the *LEGAL* standard is that eyewitnesses are ahead of
photographic evidence.
Films come out of the camera unaltered. That is their default state.
The first thing that needs to be proved is the claim that the film has
been altered. Until that happens, the default state applies: the film
has not been altered.
That is **NOT** the legal standard. Indeed, eyewitnesses are held to
be more reliable than photos - photos *MUST* be supported by the
eyewitness.
Similarly, in the case of the moon landings photos, it is up to those
who claim the photos are faked to prove their claim. It is up to those
who claim that the moon is made of green cheese to prove their claim.
Until all of these people do this, it is rational to believe that the Zapruder film is authentic, that the moon landings photos are
authentic, and that the moon is not made of green cheese.
This is a simple logical fallacy. One has nothing to do with the
other.
In at least 40 years of people claiming to have spotted anomalies in
the film, whether it is internal inconsistencies or contradictions
with witness statements or with other images, nothing has been
produced that would convince a reasonable, open-minded member of the
public that the film has been altered.
This is simply argument by lying.
What needs to happen is for someone to assemble the evidence for one
or more specific claims of alteration, write it up into an
academic-level paper, submit that paper to a reputable peer-reviewed
journal, and get the paper accepted.
No. We merely need to do the SAME THING that the Warren Commission
did... publish our findings.
You demand of others what *YOU REFUSE TO DO YOURSELF*.
Quite the coward!
Until that happens, it is all just amateurish moon-landings-style speculation.
Another logical fallacy on your part.
As far as I'm aware, no-one has even tried to do this. It's all
still at the level of "well, this kinda sorta looks a bit funny to
me, so the film must have been altered."
Are you able to make arguments *WITHOUT* logical fallacies?
That level of amateurishness is liable to make rational critics of
the lone-nut theory look like idiots by association.
Your inability to make rational arguments without sinking to logical
fallacies shows *YOUR* character... or lack thereof.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)