Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Why? Since when are movies consistant even with themselves? Luke's glass switches hands at least 4 times in a scene in Star Wars. Timeline spends half the story setting up a premise which it then spends the second half violating. There's a little red sports car driving in the distance behind the chariots in the original cut of Ben Hur. What makes you think this movie will be that accurate? And the movie would be at very best a secondary source, i.e. unreliable for this "sleuthing our asses off" that you are suggesting. You need to dig up a tape of the original game and watch the actual goals, not the recreated ones.
|
1. I figured more people would have access to the movie than the original game. Chances are better that the movie's game would be accurate than inaccurate.
2. The movie errors that you are talking about are chronological errors. These are supposed to be screened by the producers. The movie error necessitating a mistake in the reproduction of this game would be the domain of a historical consultant, and these guys are much better because mistakes are their profession.
3. I preferred that someone could obtain the real game. Read my whole statement!
Quote:
This is the type of conspiracy theory that gives conspiracy investigators a bad name. In the first place, you have NO evidence to back up these claims. You heard it from a friend who thinks maybe he read it some time. I think you should have done some looking into it before you posted these suggestions.
|
1. NO conspiracy is proven. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if it weren't so. The story I heard was plausible, and I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist. You think that I as an American want our history to be tainted? Of course not. I just want to know the truth. I apologize for trying dispel a myth that I had no choice but to consider as potentially true.
2. I did do research. I just don't have the time to track down old reels of olympic games. I did a general search through the internet and at my library and found nothing. To me, this doesnt mean the story isn't true, it just means no evidence can yet back it up.
3. Am I proposing my statements as suggestions, theory, or fact? You vacillate between these premises in this response. (The answer is, I'm merely proposing a theory that hadn't been disproved yet to me--although I thank you all for giving me enough evidence to believe the story is FALSE.)
Quote:
In the second place, you're taking a remarkeable win that has gone down in history as one of the alltime greatest moments in USA sports history, and you're taking a well-respected and recently deceased coach and basically saying it's all bullshit, the coach didn't do anything, the players didn't do anything, they couldn't have lost. Again, I think you need more evidence before you even suggest that this, frankly, amazing group of amateurs who kicked the crap out of seasoned professionals did not deserve their victory.
|
1. Don' give me that shit. A dead coach has nothing to do with anything! The truth is all that matters in a story. And to claim that the group of
amateurs beating
seasoned professionals doesn't raise skepticism about their success is delusional.
Quote:
This kind of conspiracy theory makes the public at large have a knee jerk reaction that anyone who thinks a conspiracy is happening is a crackpot. A GOOD conspiracy theory would have at least some evidence that could point to its validity before it is even brought up.
|
1. I bet you believe in God.
2. Most conspiracies are based on circumstancial evidence. This story is as well, since we know that communists governments used drugs to bolster their athletes' abilities. We also know that the USSR and America saw the Olympics as an opportunity to prove their respective superiorities. We also know that a case of cheating or breaking rules occurs practically every Olympics, albeit not as sensational as this example.
To finish my retort, I want to repeat that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. That means I don't believe a story until sufficient evidence proves it. You claim to be a conspiracy theorist, so you are admitting that you jump to conclusions about stories without absolute proof of their existence. To want to disprove a story is much more sensible than wanting to prove a story, because most conspiracy theories are false.
I hope I responded to every ridiculous and fallacious statement in your thread, but I'm sure I missed plenty.