Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Quite possibly the best documentary I’ve viewed in ages.

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where did I complain about spending time on the documentary?

    What was demanding or over the top about my questions?

    Have you any thoughts on the documentary?

    As I've explained before I am interested in conspiraxy theories, I just dont believe the vast majority are not true and not convincing.

    Which conspiracy do you believe? I have been here awhile, not yet seen you accept one, as true?


  • Options
    #33
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Which conspiracy do you believe? I have been here awhile, not yet seen you accept one, as true?

    Sorry, I have no interest in discussing myself further.


  • Options
    #34
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where did I complain about spending time on the documentary?

    What was demanding or over the top about my questions?

    Have you any thoughts on the documentary?

    As I've explained before I am interested in conspiraxy theories, I just dont believe the vast majority are not true and not convincing.

    You watch it and tell us all why its not worth watching.


  • Options
    #35
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where did I complain about spending time on the documentary?

    What was demanding or over the top about my questions?

    Have you any thoughts on the documentary?

    As I've explained before I am interested in conspiraxy theories, I just dont believe the vast majority are not true and not convincing.

    The interest you would appear to have is in the realm of disproving all and any conspiracy theories, which is perfectly fine by me, however your initial posts on this thread are demonstrably hostile and condescending in tone.

    Surely if you have no intention of watching the documentary the best course of action for a person of your persuasion would be to simply allow others who have watched it to discuss its merits amongst themselves. Any deviation from this began with you, I felt it may be useful to hold a mirror up for you to appreciate how others appropriate your contributions.

    My thoughts on the documentary have been outlined already, I most likely will not watch it, although I can appreciate why people posting on a conspiracy theory forum may find it interesting.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #36
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    You watch it and tell us all why its not worth watching.
    I don't think its worth watching because it doesnt seem to be any more verified or accurate than any number of three hour long conspiracy videos.

    Also The Nal watched the documentary and commented on it:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112238313&postcount=18

    His comments confirm my suspicions about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    King Mob wrote: »
    You aren't doing a very good job of selling the idea of people investing 3 hours of their time on a random internet documentary.

    I'm quoting this again as it shows where you raised questions about the validity of watching the documentary. Just for your records.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nullzero wrote: »
    however your initial posts on this thread are demonstrably hostile and condescending in tone. .
    Please demonstrate why they are hostile, condescending or otherwise "OTT".
    nullzero wrote: »
    Surely if you have no intention of watching the documentary the best course of action for a person of your persuasion would be to simply allow others who have watched it to discuss its merits amongst themselves.
    .
    Or I could ask the op a question?

    And again given the responses before my post and after, and given the op responses to me and others, thr discussion you are imagining probably wasnt going to happen.
    nullzero wrote: »
    My thoughts on the documentary have been outlined already, I most likely will not watch it, although I can appreciate why people posting on a conspiracy theory forum may find it interesting.
    Why won't you watch it?


  • Options
    #39
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    King Mob wrote: »
    Please demonstrate why they are hostile, condescending or otherwise "OTT".


    Or I could ask the op a question?

    And again given the responses before my post and after, and given the op responses to me and others, thr discussion you are imagining probably wasnt going to happen.

    Why won't you watch it?

    Why should I have to point out how something that you wrote and is demonstrably hostile and condescending when it is self evident that this is the case?

    This is your problem, you demand answers from people as if you are owed something. All anyone has to do to understand the tone of your posts is read them. You posturing in your typical obstinate manner makes no difference to this.

    I hadn't imagined any discussion as it happens, so I'm not sure where to go with that.

    I won't watch the documentary because I generally don't have that type of time on my hands.

    To be honest I just find it a little upsetting to see you here constantly fighting with people you look down your nose at in a never ending war of attrition that you have admittedly have become quite gifted at participating in. Surely there's more to life than arguing about things you feel you're too clever to believe in.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #40
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    its alrite. i watched it in one sitting back in 2017 in waterford.
    im not from waterford nor do i live there.
    enough said.

    that being said i sat thru 8 hours of The Arrivals one night. my poor brain...anyone seen it? bogey metaconspiracy stuff, changes ya, cant look at black and white checkered tiles the same or blondes in red, and that music, clint mansells fountain score... oh man
    you're not a conspiracy theorist until you sit thru that headf**k


  • Options
    #41
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    King Mob wrote: »

    Also The Nal watched the documentary and commented on it:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112238313&postcount=18

    His comments confirm my suspicions about it.

    so you havent got your own opinion,just parroting someone elses.

    maybe lay off on the questions then until you watched it yourself.

    Youre coming across pretty badly on these threads when you wont even look at something but fire out 101 questions interrogating anyone who dares go against youre spoon fed narrative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nullzero wrote: »
    Why should I have to point out how something that you wrote and is demonstrably hostile and condescending when it is self evident that this is the case?

    This is your problem, you demand answers from people as if you are owed something. All anyone has to do to understand the tone of your posts is read them. You posturing in your typical obstinate manner makes no difference to this.

    I hadn't imagined any discussion as it happens, so I'm not sure where to go with that.

    I won't watch the documentary because I generally don't have that type of time on my hands.

    To be honest I just find it a little upsetting to see you here constantly fighting with people you look down your nose at in a never ending war of attrition that you have admittedly have become quite gifted at participating in. Surely there's more to life than arguing about things you feel you're too clever to believe in.
    Again this is all just personal attacks based on your presumptions.

    I'm sorry that you are so offended by my tone.
    However I cannot control how sentistive some people are.

    But as its clear you only want to have a go at me and not discuss the topic, I'll leave it there.


  • Options
    #43
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    so you havent got your own opinion,just parroting someone elses.

    maybe lay off on the questions then until you watched it yourself.

    Youre coming across pretty badly on these threads when you wont even look at something but fire out 101 questions interrogating anyone who dares go against youre spoon fed narrative.
    Again weirdly personal and inaccurate.
    Ive stated my opinion pretty clearly and I asked a grand total of two questions.


  • Options
    #44
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    King Mob wrote: »
    What about it was particularly interesting or convincing?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Did you do anything to verify that the facts presented in the documentary were actually true and accurately presented?
    If so, what did you do to verify this.

    If not, why did you find the documentary interesting or convincing?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you have an opinion on the documentary?
    Have you watched it?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Where did I complain about spending time on the documentary?

    What was demanding or over the top about my questions?

    Have you any thoughts on the documentary?
    King Mob wrote: »

    Or I could ask the op a question?

    Why won't you watch it?

    Yes 2 questions.
    Pretending to be confused.
    Pretending that its all getting "personal".
    Your modus operandi is plain to see for all but your devoted follower.


  • Options
    #45
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Yes 2 questions.
    Pretending to be confused.
    Pretending that its all getting "personal".
    Your modus operandi is plain to see for all but your devoted follower.
    Yes, 2 questions followed by attempts to clarify inaccurate personal comments.

    Again not interested in discussing myself as much as you guys are.


  • Options
    #46
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again not interested in discussing .

    the video cos you arent arsed to watch it


  • Options
    #47
    bb12
    Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭bb12


    have just started watching it...got to the part where he states that the duke of edinburgh's brother was a nazi and head of the SS. never heard this before so googled it and it turns out it was his brother in law and he was a senior member of the ss, not the head...so slightly misleading facts right there...


  • Options
    #48
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    bb12 wrote: »
    have just started watching it...got to the part where he states that the duke of edinburgh's brother was a nazi and head of the SS. never heard this before so googled it and it turns out it was his brother in law and he was a senior member of the ss, not the head...so slightly misleading facts right there...

    This kind of twisting of facts is a staple of the armature conspiracy theory documentary.


  • Options
    #49
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Mod

    Whatever King Mob's character is is not the topic of debate.

    The questions were valid, as the OP details were vague and short at the time.

    This back and forth is bringing thread off topic and ends here.


  • Options
    #50
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    JFK talked about secret societies before he died. It was his last speech; I believe.

    starts at 6 mins 30 seconds

    Not surprisingly, you're yet again wrong, on both counts.

    The speech is from April 1961, two and a half years before he died. And if you had bothered to watch it all and not simply quote mine, its a speech about the Cold War and the Soviet Union.


  • Options
    #51
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    relax folks. watch The Arrivals doc, (if u can call it a doc)
    i think its even on utube
    take a bucket of salt with this one, its practically a comedy for conspiracy fans


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Not surprisingly, you're yet again wrong, on both counts.

    The speech is from April 1961, two and a half years before he died. And if you had bothered to watch it all and not simply quote mine, its a speech about the Cold War and the Soviet Union.

    You're right was badly worded YouTube page I saw that said it was a JFK speech from 1963.

    Second part. I think his talk about secrecy from within government and people attempting to keep secrets from the public?

    Here his speech
    The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.


  • Options
    #53
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You're right was badly worded YouTube page I saw that said it was a JFK speech from 1963.

    Second part. I think his talk about secrecy from within government and people attempting to keep secrets from the public?

    Here his speech

    Nope, thats a small part of the speech you have quote mined to back up your weird agenda.

    This part of the speech has been around for decades in conspiracy circles. Old news. Old, pathetic news.

    Quote Mine
    Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.


  • Options
    #54
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    King Mob wrote: »

    I don't understand why people do this...:confused:

    I think it's a bit like Jordan Peterson fans who post videos instead of backing up their positions themselves.

    They watch these videos themselves and are made to FEEL smart after watching it. They FEEL like they have just learned something and they FEEL validated that they are smarter for watching it. However, when they try to articulate something about the video, they either draw a blank or stop themselves because they start to see the absurdity when they put it into their own words.

    But, that FEELING that they got when they watched the video was very real and they can't let that go. There had to be something to it even if they can't express it properly themselves so that's why they post the video.

    If only you would watch the long video, you too would get that same feeling and be a fan and therefore validate the posters feeling of smartness.

    The above is just an opinion of mine and isn't backed up by anything more than guesses on my part so take it with a pinch of salt.


  • Options
    #55
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Nope, thats a small part of the speech you have quote mined to back up your weird agenda.

    This part of the speech has been around for decades in conspiracy circles. Old news. Old, pathetic news.

    Quote Mine
    Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

    I have to disagree, for me his talking about keeping secrets from the American public about national security, . He talks about the cold war during the speech, but you are dismissing parts of the speech were he clearly talks about people who cover up their mistakes, people who act in secret covertly, and no spending is questioned. That sounds like a warning by JFK this happens and he's going to oppose it. 

    The full speech is here, let users make up their own minds about it. 
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427


  • Options
    #56
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Nal, he outlines at start of speech what is about.

    Quote by JFK.
    This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.


  • Options
    #57
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    I've seen it. Should be called "Everything is a conspiracy".

    Its bat**** crazy for the most part. If I remember correctly they say JFK was shot 16 times by 8 shooters or something. lol.

    I dislike the video for that reason. Watched some of it and 8 assassins is not realistic, that way too many and it's a more risky operation.

    I'm open to three shooter teams- three shooters, and three back up guys watching out in case they get caught. 

    I know you believe Oswald acted alone.


  • Options
    #58
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    This. Even a small hint to what it's about?

    Mostly about JFK, skimmed through it. There accurate information, mixed in with conjecture and opinion. There some 9/11 information also.

    The narrator believes what written in history books is false, that the world is run by undercover coverts means, and that rich men have engineered it that way. I don't necessarily quarrel with some of the suggestions in this video.

    For me JFK and 9/11 are clear covert secret operations achieved by unknown people, in the background.


  • Options
    #59
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I have to disagree, for me his talking about keeping secrets from the American public about national security, . He talks about the cold war during the speech, but you are dismissing parts of the speech were he clearly talks about people who cover up their mistakes, people who act in secret covertly, and no spending is questioned. That sounds like a warning by JFK this happens and he's going to oppose it. 

    The full speech is here, let users make up their own minds about it. 
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

    The speech is about the Soviet Union and resisting communism. I've no idea why its been brought up in a conspiracy forum.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I dislike the video for that reason. Watched some of it and 8 assassins is not realistic, that way too many and it's a more risky operation.

    I'm open to three shooter teams- three shooters, and three back up guys watching out in case they get caught. 

    I know you believe Oswald acted alone.

    Yes because thats what 56 years of investigation and evidence prove. There is no evidence whatsoever for 3 teams of shooters and "three back up guys".

    "Three back up guys".

    lol.


  • Options
    #60
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »

    Yes because thats what 56 years of investigation and evidence prove. There is no evidence whatsoever for 3 teams of shooters and "three back up guys".

    "Three back up guys".

    lol.


    Disagree about the speech.

    The evidence: The doctors all claim the back of the head got blown out behind the ear. That an exit wound. 

    Entry wound is smaller. There was a second shooter based on the evidence. 

    They even had to conjure up a theory that one bullet hit two people and caused multiple injuries to both Kennedy and Connelly. 


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,445 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Disagree about the speech.

    Of course you do.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#.27Secret_Societies.27_speech


Advertisement