CrossRoss Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 We were glad of them in 1941, by Christ. And I'd much rather we are with them than against them. Were you even alive in 1941? Isn't it time to move on and forget about contrived stories and contrived "wars" ? Or is asking why are they still here, some kind of disrepectful blasphemy? I've read some conspiracy stories in my time but never one that included WWII as being "contrived" war. Would you care to expand on that? I would respectfully suggest you are not widely read at all The proof is a book call Propaganda in the next war written in 1938 by a Captain Sydney Rogerson As if that is not enough you could visit Bletchley Park the forerunner of GCHQ where they freely admit the place was bought for operations in 1938 for entertainment watch the imitation game about Alan Turing but take the dates of the story with a pinch of salt You are most welcome Andy Onchan David Icke,William Cooper and George Carlin are good reading/videos for starters If you are looking for stimulating truthful websites then please use something a little more imaginative than google/NSA/GCHQ for your "news" searches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 I think Cross Ross has a few crossed wires. Mental does not come into it. Is there a link with Tame Elf ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 contrived yes crossoss link no http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Oh why did I have to go and type his name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 no link with tame elf, stinking enigma or kind regards no link with george carlin either, I am much much funnier than him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 The Umbrella Man At Dealey Plaza On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site. tl;dr - "you can never on your own think up all of the perfectly valid non sinister explanations" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 here is a another version of who umbrella man was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 here is a another version of who umbrella man was It's funny that film - the idea that the world is run be secret societies, imaginary elites and satanists. All bent on world domination. It's a perspective which is very much influenced by 20th century popular fiction. Apart from obviously appealing to a few people who are inherently contrarian and difficult, people enjoy this conspiracy stuff in the same way as the Victorians liked Christmas ghost stories and Ouija boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 like you had enough time to actually watch the film examine the evidence and think carefully perhaps compare it to other sources.........................hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 like you had enough time to actually watch the film examine the evidence and think carefully perhaps compare it to other sources.........................hmmm I watched it earlier this year. Almost nothing which he says is substantiated. And unsubstantiated assumptions become the basis for further unsubstantiated assumptions. It's academically very weak. He extrapolates grand theories from almost nothing. If you follow his line of thinking it is not based on anything. And his forensic analysis of film and photographs is utter bollocks. Though I can see why it would appeal to millennials raised on CSI style nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 For a taste of how weak the content which CrossRoss linked to is, try watching a few minutes of the sequence which begins at 3hrs:00mins:39secs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 A quite interesting film, CrossRoss. I watched the first hour or so, but I couldn't be arsed to watch the rest, it's over 3 hours long. The thing is that the author makes some huge leaps to connect historical events, but at least in the part that I saw, didn't produce any primary sources to substantiate the leaps he was making. I would personally treat it as a collection of QI facts, and dismiss the overall thesis as theorising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I watched it earlier this year. And his forensic analysis of film and photographs is utter bollocks. can you substantiate where you came across the film? if you have watched it before coming from a guy who thinks a chap with an umbrella put up on a sunny clear day standing near where a president has his brains blown out to protest about neville chamberlain makes perfect sense............... next you will be saying bobbie el chimpo bobster is a comedy genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 can you substantiate where you came across the film? if you have watched it before I don't need to. The part about the way in which the shadows seem less blurred (less unsharp) in the out of focus areas of that 8mm footage is not a mystery. His analysis is silly. It is normal for the shadows of people and the ground itself to appear relatively more sharp. Partly because we perceive sharpness as a facet of contrast - and shadows in harsh light are dense and contrasty. And partly because people move relatively more than their shadows at a distance (parts of the body move within the shadow area for example without breaking the outline). And the ground is stationary. That 1960s Kodak stock was 25 ASA. Even in bright sunshine that required a relatively slow shutter speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.