Author Topic: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister  (Read 169 times)

Offline Fred Litwin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« on: December 02, 2021, 04:07:10 PM »
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2021, 04:42:12 PM »
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2021, 05:02:20 PM »
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.

Offline Fred Litwin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2021, 11:31:23 PM »
Bad faith? Where am I wrong in this blog post?

fred

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2021, 12:54:27 AM »
Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.
Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?

Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 01:02:06 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2021, 12:58:09 AM »
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.

fred
Usually Oswald defenders here don't like it when people make claims about him that make him look bad. They examine the claims under the proverbial microscope.

Here we have Stone making claims about Oswald and some alleged connection to a racist like Banister and all of a sudden their high standards of evidence against him disappear.

I know, I know, it's the internet <g>.


Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
Re: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2021, 02:57:51 AM »
Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?

Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.

Both Stone and Fred have clearly biased opinions.

The facts that people choose emphasize or choose to omit is the biggest indicator of bias.

I don't mind people having biases so long as they're upfront about it.



 

Mobile View