|
Post by Zydeco on Jun 2, 2015 18:41:10 GMT -8
I thought I'd post this. It's wonderful. Really worth watching.
Has Gareth Penn seen it? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by WelshChappie on Jun 10, 2015 10:56:55 GMT -8
I thought I'd post this. It's wonderful. Really worth watching. Has Gareth Penn seen it? Any thoughts? I've seen this previously being a fan of de-bunking sceptic James Randi. His exposing of con artists such as the vile Peter Popoff (Rip-Off as I refer to him) is a noble and ethical thing. How Popoff came back from this and is once again annually turning over a 6 figure income for his 'Ministry' is absolutelty enraging. Anyway.... Yes, this case more so than any other has a lot of folk seeing what it is they want or expect to see. An example I often use is the person on Tom V's site chat room than informed me Kane cannot be the Zodiac and when I asked why not got the response "Because He is too boring." It's about balance. If someone makes an assumption or has a theory about Zodiac based on absolutely nothing other than 'Because I said so' then these should, more often than not, be dismissed out of hand. When I have a theory about Z, or maybe make an assumption about him or a scene for example, I will always have a basis or reason I can point to to show why I assume it. The diffrence between the two ways of comming to a conclusion on a crime scene, a suspect or whatever it is, is quite clear and I think if you can show good reason why you have assumed something, people will give it far more credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Oct 1, 2015 11:28:59 GMT -8
There is an old ''chestnut'' of a joke in Britain,that goes along the lines of : ''If you need a engineer,look up the phone directory,under ''B'' for ''Boring''.''
Ironically,I think that is Zodiac,to a tee.The fascination with the contents of his letters,has actually more to do with the thought that this man actually did carry out some of his threats,and did actually kill some of his claimed victims.His letters,in the cold light of day,are monotonous and tedious ramblings of a confused man,desperate for recognition of his self-perceived many talents.Clearly,someone who was perceived by others as dull....and boring.
We should not confuse this man with someone that didn't have some intelligence and education - he almost certainly did,but I believe he struggled with articulating himself,in the real world,in a manner that might hold people's attention for very long.He understood irony [...which probably makes him either Texan or English...I can hear the jeers,already [!]...] - but putting anything across,that ''entertained'' his fellow man,was an ability beyond him.
In his letters,Zodiac believed that he ''came alive'',but couldn't quite make a connection with other's interests being because they were curious to experience what it might be like to be ''Mad as a Hatter''.
Zodiac was no artist - he was just desperate to convince us of his ''all round'' talents - like so many engineers and ''do-ers'' of applied sciences,they lack the ''charm''....but they can spot a ''science philistine'' at a thousand paces.Zodiac was no ''science philistine'' - he knew one or two things,in this respect.
A true story : Frank Sinatra watching Dean Martin,notices that Mr.Martin has his audience in the palm of his hand,after telling a particular joke.''Frank'' afterwards badgers ''Dean'' to let him have the gag.''Dean'' reluctantly agrees.Next night ''Frank'' tells the gag....and it ''bombs''.So,''Frank'' asks ''Dean'' what was wrong with ''Dean's'' gag.Exacerbated,Dean Martin replies : ''How many times have I told you,Frank - you're NOT a funny man !!''.
|
|
|
Post by WelshChappie on Oct 5, 2015 12:16:35 GMT -8
Well I always point out that I don't claim to be correct all the time, even though I quite clearly am always correct I feel it is important one doesn't make this overtly obvious.
"That is just theory!" Many have barked at me. I reply that yes it is only theory, but because it is one put forward by myself this automatically means it is 99.9999999% likely to be accurate.
Se I think it is important to always appear grounded and not at all arrogant and egocentric. This is why I only allow myself the 99.99999 potential to be correct as I feel 100.00% may give the wrong egocentric impression. y friends are always telling me they fear I am far too humble and introverted, and I reply to them: "Quite! Quite! I am aware of this my old chaps."
This is why I never tell anyone "Your wrong and I am not!" without first saying: "With all due respect..."
Hehe
|
|
|
Post by Rubislaw32 on Oct 6, 2015 1:14:02 GMT -8
I certainly agree with a little acknowledged social etiquette.
In pursuit of the absolute truth,and handicapped in the knowledge that law enforcement hold advantages over ''us'',it is unlikely that ''we'' will often find ourselves in positions of ''conclusive proof'' [?].
What is really important is that we continue to dip our toes in the water,and ''engage'' with one another.''Truths'' don't always come about through ''majority consensus''[...ironically,I immediately start considering jury verdicts....] - but it certainly assists establishing ''likely outcomes''that materialized in the past - which can propel us forward in solving ''the whole bang shoot''.
Perhaps at this point,I may be audacious enough to say to fellow members : ''Take a leaf from WelshChappie,and Ricardo,who has clearly invested much time in creating this website.Don't sit back like lemons - start ''engaging'' - it doesn't matter whether you are 10% right,or 90% wrong - whether you state categorically,or merely speculate.''Debate'' and ''Contribution''is what matters [?].
The more ''talking heads'',the better [?].Hey,and I know who you members are,that are spies for the larger websites.Shame on you for giving your lucid best to them,and seeing this website,as a ''quiet little backwater''.
As I have intimated before - this is where it is going to happen !
|
|