Historical inaccuracy

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
My, Radhil, what wisdom you have to spot snide comments from reading words on an electronic message board. I didn't mean to be snide in any way. It's what I've always said. I called into my local conspiracy theory shock jock in town and told him the same thing. He didn't like it, but he said it was an interesting theory (this coming from a guy who believes the 9/11 plans were remote-controlled). No, snideness was neither intended nor achieved. I am sorry you read it that way.

It was the almost nothing leading into it that led me to read it that way. Frankly, I didn't see any other way to read it.

I have heard that the US knew about the PH attack beforehand. I have heard many, many stories about Oklahoma. There are books written on everything -- by both qualified and unqualified authors, meaning ones involved in the investigations and ones not -- that come up with some wild, wacky stories. How much of it all is true, I don't know. One small example is one of the guys investigating the OK bombing said several witnesses saw a car with three Middle-Eastern men speeding away a few minutes before the explosion. Stuff like that. Did they do it? Or did some anti-social lunatic do it? I don't know, but someone thinks it may have been one and others may think it was the other. It's a mystery, and people want to explain it somehow. Maybe one person thought they saw the Middle-Eastern men, due to some subconcious stereotypes within their mind, and others agreed, because sometimes people will agree when you ask them something because it fills in an empty spot in their mind. I wonder if the author of that book reveals how many people DID NOT see the men speeding away?

What I do remember is that the media for literally days kept pounding the idea that some Middle Eastern group could be responsible. Some still kept trying to say it even after McVeigh was in cuffs. I was a little younger and too detached to analyze all that at the time, but later I figured it was just early paranoia and a junkie press.

Heh, well, Radhil, I am not batting the ball for anyone, and for you to presume I am doing all of this to personally peeve you, then you are mistaken. I am not arguing. Heck, this isn't even a debate. I am just talking here about what I think is an interesting subject. Everything I say you act confrontational to, man. Lighten up, junior.

Heh. Well, that's why I decided to just flat out ask. You should have seen the first reply to that post. I was getting a little manic. Still was.

Recent goings-ons is, unfortunately, one topic I seem to not be able to lighten up on. I take it too seriously, and with good reason. I took you as snide because there are a lot of wild stories going around, only the far worst of which seem to be not true, the people asking the questions generating those stories are the last people to want excitement (ie. victim's families), and because my frustration with trying to interpret both sides has reached an all-time high. You caught the projection, and for that, I'm sorry.

That said, I'm likely to do it again if it comes up. As you said, I'm a little too serious. Where's that magic wand when you need it....

[SpooRancher]

Dubbya/Clarke

Just because you don't like the things that President Clarke....eh, Dubbya is doing once he's there, and the things that he has Psi Corps doing.....eh, the CIA, I mean....does not mean that he is not the legitimate leader of the country.

[Dr Maturin]

<<Just because you don't like the things that President Clarke....eh, Dubbya is doing once he's there, and the things that he has Psi Corps doing.....eh, the CIA, I mean....does not mean that he is not the legitimate leader of the country.>>

...oooooookay.

Anyways, talk about something scary. Today, an editorial from the Washington Post a few weeks back was in my paper today. It was written by Jack Valenti, MPAA prex. He essentially touched upon what we were talking about in this thread all weekend. About History Channel (among others) telling history from one viewpoint, and it becoming canon in future generations. He brought into question a documentary about LBJ that called the former president a murderder. Valenti also talked about the JFK movie and its fictional elements.

I found it on the WP site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9612-2004Mar19.html

[SpooRancher]

Absurdity

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
...oooooookay.

I would hope you understood I was being intentionally facetious. But, I have heard some conspiracy theorists making similar parallels.

[colonyearth]

Re: Dubbya/Clarke

Originally posted by SpooRancher
Just because you don't like the things that President Clarke....eh, Dubbya is doing once he's there, and the things that he has Psi Corps doing.....eh, the CIA, I mean....does not mean that he is not the legitimate leader of the country.

ROTFLMAO!!! That was great!

My little point here is this: JMS using the story is not diminished in the least since at the end of the very article ZHDD posted a link to, it clearly states that the two various theories continue to persist and probably always will. So, 200 years from now the fact that Sheridan had been told one of the theories and not the other is completely within reason to believe. Don't bother me none..it was a powerful moment in B5. And much better than making up some future event. It's what I love about JMS.

And let's all remember that he did acknowledge that there were two theories on the matter and he consciously choose to use one.

As for the rest...I'm with Radhill...I'm a bit testy on current affairs in our government...lies...secrets...star chamber politics. And quite frankly it scares the shit out of me. I fear, simply, that we and the world cannot afford four more years of G.W. Bush. He will be a lame-duck president with no strong VP to run after him. There will be nothing he won't do since he won't be concerned with his own political future or that of his VP's.

I mean let's be honest...Cheney for President? What a laugh.

NOPE....Spoorancher was eerily, perhaps to much so, close to the truth. But it was still hilarious. For sometimes in the face of uncertainty and overwhelming emotion, the only answer is to laugh hysterically!

CE

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
<<Just because you don't like the things that President Clarke....eh, Dubbya is doing once he's there, and the things that he has Psi Corps doing.....eh, the CIA, I mean....does not mean that he is not the legitimate leader of the country.>>

...oooooookay.

Anyways, talk about something scary. Today, an editorial from the Washington Post a few weeks back was in my paper today. It was written by Jack Valenti, MPAA prex. He essentially touched upon what we were talking about in this thread all weekend. About History Channel (among others) telling history from one viewpoint, and it becoming canon in future generations. He brought into question a documentary about LBJ that called the former president a murderder. Valenti also talked about the JFK movie and its fictional elements.

I found it on the WP site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar19.html

On this point, many people disagree. JFK's assasination is one of those great mysteries. Will we ever know the truth? I doubt it, because of the star chamber politics I mentioned in my previous post. They cover their tracks too well.

I will simply say this...Lee Oswald did not kill JFK. Who did? I don't know. Was Oswald in on it or set up in expert fashion? I don't know. But the Warren Commission's findings are ludicrous, end of story. Personally, and I'm no conspiracy theorist here, I tend to find Oliver Stone's theory in the film JFK to make the most sense. But do I take it or anything else I hear on the History Channel or anywhere else as absolute fact? No.

Unless you were there...you will never know the complete truth about anything. History Channel or history book...both can be wrong and have often been known to be.

Besides, history is always slanted by those who record it.

CE

[grumbler]

Actually, CE, I have taught a course on forensics for years and one of the students' favorites is "The Trial of Lee Harvey OSwald" which assumes Oswald survives Ruby's bullet and goes on trial.

Natrally, i have read most of the books and web sites on the topic, and so i know a little bit about the case. Lee Harvey oswald definately shot JFK and Connelly. Of that there is no reasonable doubt.

Now, as to fired the fatal shot, there are only two theories that stand the test of time:
1. OSwald did
2. The Secret Service agent in the car behind JFK did, by accident.

Now, if you find the second theory preposterous, read Mortal Error by Bonar Menniger. While it seems highly unlikely )based only on the fact that the shot would have been freakishly unlucky) it does explain everything - why the coverups, why the head wound took on the form it did, and why the SS refused to allow the Dallas autopsy (and why the Bethesda autopsy was changed). And once you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Now, the most important thing is to not listen at all to Oliver Stone. He has admitted that he made stuff up to put into the movie, and that he altered the Zapruder film shown. His movie is a work of fiction, based only very loosely on the facts. If you found it entertaining, that is all well and good, but to take anything from an Oliver Sone movie as more than accidently "true" is to misunderstand his purpose.

[Dr Maturin]

<<I would hope you understood I was being intentionally facetious. But, I have heard some conspiracy theorists making similar parallels.>>

The far right radio shock jock in town here talks about it every morning with different guests, the most notorious of which is Alex Jones, a quack from Houston. One guy on his show frequently says there is no Al Qaida.

[Dr Maturin]

Well, Colony, here is a little secret: ALL politicians lie and have secrets. It doesn't matter what party or what level of either side they are. And your opinion that we can't afford another four years of W. means either you are right and the opinions of 60% of the country disagree with you and are therefore stupid, or you are wrong and just part of the minority opinion.

What befuddles me is this: Bush has been the most "compassionate" GOP president to Democrat wishes, but they HATE him more than any other past GOP'er. I wrote a thing on this a month back, called "Bush Losing the Cold War." Now, this isn't to insinuate that Dems are as bad as Commies or that they are true enemies, but when you appease and let your opponents get to you...they want more. Just like if we ignored the terrorists, they wouldn't have left us alone. I, for one, don't rate W. in my top five favorites of all time. But he is strong on my big issues, which are defense and low taxes, so I will vote for him. But if I even thought he or any president, whether they be a Repub, Dem, Green, Libertarian, Whig -- I don't care -- was planning on turning the US into a police state, there is no way I would support them. But the "lies" you speak of are not of the conspiracy type...they are just truth stretchings of the standard political type.

Sorry in advance for those who hate politics in this thread.

[Radhil]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
Well, Colony, here is a little secret: ALL politicians lie and have secrets. It doesn't matter what party or what level of either side they are.

99.99% of what is wrong with this country right there. In my opinion, anyway. That more people aren't making a fuss about it is one of the reasons we're going downhill.

And your opinion that we can't afford another four years of W. means either you are right and the opinions of 60% of the country disagree with you and are therefore stupid, or you are wrong and just part of the minority opinion.

Actually it's more like 50% of the country now. Any way you slice it, half the country's stupid. That scares me.

What befuddles me is this: Bush has been the most "compassionate" GOP president to Democrat wishes, but they HATE him more than any other past GOP'er.

Huh? Er, how? Democrats haven't been asking for anything up until lately. Now they just want the country back.

But if I even thought he or any president, whether they be a Repub, Dem, Green, Libertarian, Whig -- I don't care -- was planning on turning the US into a police state, there is no way I would support them. But the "lies" you speak of are not of the conspiracy type...they are just truth stretchings of the standard political type.

Sorry in advance for those who hate politics in this thread.

Bush has taken quite a few steps in this direction. Some can be taken into context as war time necessary evils, and others much less so. Either way, it worries me far more that these steps are taken in a war that - according to the same people behind it - seems to have no definite end.

*sigh* Yeah, I had to comment again. I'll go hang myself over here now....

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by Radhil
99.99% of what is wrong with this country right there. In my opinion, anyway. That more people aren't making a fuss about it is one of the reasons we're going downhill.



Actually it's more like 50% of the country now. Any way you slice it, half the country's stupid. That scares me.



Huh? Er, how? Democrats haven't been asking for anything up until lately. Now they just want the country back.



Bush has taken quite a few steps in this direction. Some can be taken into context as war time necessary evils, and others much less so. Either way, it worries me far more that these steps are taken in a war that - according to the same people behind it - seems to have no definite end.

*sigh* Yeah, I had to comment again. I'll go hang myself over here now....

Thank you Radhill...it's nice to know there are others out there who look at the writing on the wall and see that it raises some serious concerns and questions...not to mention the hair on the back of one's neck.

And to say that Bush has been compassionate...on anything...makes me seriously concerned for anyone who can convince themselves of that. Sorry, ZHDD, he's no compassionate. Even members of his own party have said as much, and have backed away from him on certain issues. This man has done more to divide this country than any president since Kennedy over civil rights. And at least Kennedy was on the correct side of that issue.

Stretching the truth? That's what you call it? Where exactly did you get those rose-tinted glasses you wear? A Republican give those to you did he?

And as for Kennedy...I didn't say that Stone's film was historically accurate...I said it tends to make sense to me. And there is no proof of the theory you mentioned anymore than any other theory. Was Oswald a shooter, maybe...maybe not, but I gaurantee you he was not the only one.

Hide your head in the sand much?

CE

PS: ZHDD, please quit responding to me as though I'm some ignorant, un-intelligent, un-informed, SF geek, conspiracy theorist, kid. I don't appreciate the condecending tone (that seems to be a right wing tool). I happen to be a very intelligent, well educated adult, and since I work in the news business, I tend to hear and see a lot of things that never make it to air. So I'm pretty well up to date on current affairs. I like to stay informed on what Bush is gonna f*ck up next. He's dangerous...and if you can't see that...I'm sorry. I just hope to God that he's not re-elected...because I am seriously concerned with just what might happen if he is. Is Kerry perfect? No, but he's not Bush, and he's got a more level head than Bush.

I'm not getting drawn into this any further. If you ever want to learn more and get your head out of the sand and actually look at the facts and the frightening conclusions even common sense point to...let me know. And a word of advice, quit using FOX News Channel for you statistics and polls...they're skewed to the right...I know...I work for them.

This isn't personal...but if you keep it up...it will be.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by colonyearth
And as for Kennedy...I didn't say that Stone's film was historically accurate...I said it tends to make sense to me. And there is no proof of the theory you mentioned anymore than any other theory. Was Oswald a shooter, maybe...maybe not, but I gaurantee you he was not the only one.

Hide your head in the sand much?

CE

Of course it "made sense" to you. It was fiction! Babylon 5 makes more sense than either JFK or the Warren Commision.

And I must admit that your "guarantee" that Oswald wasn't the only shooter, followed by the ad hominim "Hide your head in the sand much?" made me laugh out loud.

But I don't want to debate this issue, I just wanted to point out that there was a scholarly work on the topic you mentioned that answers all the questions without requiring impossible conspiracies or made-up facts.

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by grumbler
Of course it "made sense" to you. It was fiction! Babylon 5 makes more sense than either JFK or the Warren Commision.

And I must admit that your "guarantee" that Oswald wasn't the only shooter, followed by the ad hominim "Hide your head in the sand much?" made me laugh out loud.

But I don't want to debate this issue, I just wanted to point out that there was a scholarly work on the topic you mentioned that answers all the questions without requiring impossible conspiracies or made-up facts.

The theory you put forth is only that as well...a theory. There is no proof either way. And quit with the inferrences that I'm some gullible dupe who believes everything he's told on TV or in movies. All I'm saying is that Oswald, if he acted, did not act alone...whether that be a SS agent to f*cked up, or more than one shooter...the "official report" was the biggest work of fiction of all in regards to JFK's assasination.

On some freakish level, we're agreeing here. While I can learn of this newest theory you're telling me about and say, at least from what you've said it sounds possible (though I personally haven't read all the facts and evidence), I will not accept it as absolute fact either. My point was, there was something covered up...and to be honest..."scholarly work" sounds nice...but is still someone's personal conclusions based on the evidence as they see it. Ok they're an intelligent and educated person. So are a lot of other people. What some call impossible, others call possible. And as for facts...I don't for one second believe that all of the facts have been presented, or that some of the evidence wasn't destroyed. Too many questions still left unanswered.

I personally don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened. It's one of those great mysteries.

CE

OH, and laughter, huh? Glad I could make you laugh at a statement that your own theory supports. I "gauranteed" that Oswald wasn't the only shooter. By your theory, he wasn't. There was another shooter...I never said anything about the intentions of the other shooter, did I?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by colonyearth
OH, and laughter, huh? Glad I could make you laugh at a statement that your own theory supports. I "gauranteed" that Oswald wasn't the only shooter. By your theory, he wasn't. There was another shooter...I never said anything about the intentions of the other shooter, did I?

Huh? I proposed that you read a book and be a little more infromed about the theories of the assassination and you make this "you own" theory?

Read the book, and then we can debate it (in a seperate thread, to delight the others). All we can agree on in this thread is that Oliver Stone's account is a complete fiction, derived from his self-stated wish to "change the memory of America."

[colonyearth]

Originally posted by grumbler
Huh? I proposed that you read a book and be a little more infromed about the theories of the assassination and you make this "you own" theory?

Read the book, and then we can debate it (in a seperate thread, to delight the others). All we can agree on in this thread is that Oliver Stone's account is a complete fiction, derived from his self-stated wish to "change the memory of America."

Sorry, got semantically incorrect there. By "your own" theory I was referring to the theory you mentioned in your post. And it technically still is a theory.

What's the book again? Would love to check it out. But I hope you don't think it's going to change my mind about government secrets and lies and the star chambers of politics. Or the military industrial complex either...cause that shit just scares the willies out of me.

CE