JFK Documentary - Evidence Of Revision

HISTORY MAY BE REVISED EVEN AS IT IS BEING WRITTEN

"Evidence of Revision" is a 5-DVD, 8 hour long documentary series whose purpose is to present the publicly unavailable and even suppressed historical audio, video, and film recordings largely unseen by the American public relating to the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, the little known classified "Black Ops" actually used to intentionally create the massive war in Viet Nam, the CIA "mind control" programs and their involvement in the RFK assassination and the Jonestown massacre and other important truths of our post-modern time.

Click to expand...

http://www.wingtv.net/evidenceofrevision.html

i watched this documentary recently and found it to be excellent.
the amount of rare archival footage unearthed is staggering.
i read 'Farewell America' at the same time and together they painted a vivid picture of the times.

highly recommended!

How long ago did you order it?

to be honest (as i always am) - i haven't ordered it at all - i aquired it through, ehm... money-less means :/
i have a hard time buying documentaries without having seen them before - i certainly don't want to financially support the numerous COINTELPRO/Disinformation outfits.

i posted here with the intention of finding out weather the SOTT team had seen this documentary or was interested in it.
if yes: i'd offer to buy it for you guys
if no: i'll just make a $20 donation to wingtv for having seen it (and to save on shipping) ;)

Iconoclast said:

to be honest (as i always am) - i haven't ordered it at all - i aquired it through, ehm... money-less means

Click to expand...

Uhhm, you might want to re-read what you just wrote - if you're always honest, then how did you watch a pirated version of the video????????????????????


You might want to examine your 'I always am' comment - clearly you always aren't. But, sincerity with everyone is a weakness and most people who say they are always honest simply have no idea how often they lie to themselves and to others.

there were 3 options open to me:

- buy the documentary upfront
- watch first, pay later
- not watch it at all

since quite a few of the documentaries i have watched over the years turned out to be outright disinformation and since i know that many of them are put out by agencies working in concert with the PTB, i am very careful who i hand my €'s over to.

if i watch something and deem it to be good content, i reward the creators by buying it afterwards. i also do this with software (shareware - try before you buy)

yes, by the standards of copyright law, my actions are probably dishonest, but i really couldn't care less about that - i consider my personal ethics superior to copyright law.

Iconoclast said:

there were 3 options open to me:

- buy the documentary upfront
- watch first, pay later
- not watch it at all

since quite a few of the documentaries i have watched over the years turned out to be outright disinformation and since i know that many of them are put out by agencies working in concert with the PTB, i am very careful who i hand my €'s over to.

if i watch something and deem it to be good content, i reward the creators by buying it afterwards. i also do this with software (shareware - try before you buy)

yes, by the standards of copyright law, my actions are probably dishonest, but i really couldn't care less about that - i consider my personal ethics superior to copyright law.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you know that if you're "honest" with that last statement to the "wrong" people or in the wrong place, you can easily end up in all sorts of trouble. Especially if you're caught in the act by the "wrong" people. So if you are stupid, you will always be honest as you say, and end up in serious trouble very quickly as a result of this, which means that you are not only useless to the efforts of this group, you're extremely dangerous and can easily compromise and damage these efforts. If we were a resistance movement during Nazi Germany and you joined the movement and said "Oh by the way I'm always honest!" you'd be sacrificing the whole movement to the first Nazi that asks where the headquarters are. But I don't think you're stupid, I think you were dishonest when you said "I'm always honest", and even though that was a lie, in this case that's a good thing, osit. :P

Also, you neglected to mention the 4th option that was also open to you, watch first, pay never. Based on your own statement, you do not want to pay for disinfo which is why you watch it before paying, so you obviously were keeping the 4th option open as well, you just didn't list it. I think that shows that you're not always honest.

But if you meant that you're always honest with this group, would you list your credit card numbers here if asked? And if you think I'm being a wiseass with such questions, that's only cuz I've been hanging out with Ark (stalking him on the forum). He has a habit to ask people for their credit card numbers when they say they're always honest. And as you can probably tell from SOTT's general financial situation, he never found people honest enough to give them out yet, unfortunately. There's always hope!! :P

I think all of ya'll ought to read "Meetings With Remarkable Men."

My personal opinion is that putting a video out for 19.95 that is composed of no real creative input on your part is just a tad greedy if your real impulse is to get as much info out there as possible. We try to charge as little for our material as possible considering what we have to pay to produce it and we give a TON of stuff away. You can get about everything in our books right here on our website and the website is NEVER gonna be "pay per view". Yes, in order to do this, we do ask for public support, donations, etc. Victor and Lisa were always ragging on anybody who asked for donations as though that made them automatically con-artists (and they often are) and we see here one reason why.

Yes, Victor and Lisa did produce some good work of their own, but mostly, they buy and resell other people's stuff and make a profit on it.

Anyway, I also understand why - in this world of disinfo and con artists - one would like to see the video before buying if that is easily arranged. Before ya'll go throwing stones, think about all the music and movies YOU have enjoyed without paying for them.

We frequently make scanned books available to people privately because we know they can't afford to buy them and they may not be available in libraries. From our point of view, it is no different than lending a book out of your private library. We only ask that the person buy their own copy when able and also write a review for the author on amazon if possible. There should always be an exchange, and I don't think that this world has shown itself to be "moral" enough that we should consider its rules to be the ultimate yardstick of conscience. In fact, all of what all of you are talking about is "morality" and has nothing to do with conscience.

I also notice a general tendency to look for reasons to "scratch" people or see demons where there are none. I hope that some of you will examine yourselves for this tendency and spend a bit more time in external considering and less time in internal considering, including thinking that you have no beam in your own eye.

Laura said:

Before ya'll go throwing stones, think about all the music and movies YOU have enjoyed without paying for them.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I have no problem with viewing before you pay or paying what you think things are worth or, quite frankly, anything anyone wants to do along those lines. My only point was that I found it funny that in one sentence Iconoclast said he was always honest and then said he didn't pay for the movie he linked for other people to purchase. I still think it's funny - I don't think it's a crime, I just found the internal contradiction in the sentence to be humorous.

As far as 'beams in my eye' go - there are some days I can't even see three feet in front of me because of all of them.

As far as 'always being honest' - I'm not - I still lie to myself and others pretty much every single day, so the 'I always am' comment just struck me as rather silly - that's all.

Also to clarify, I have no problem with what Iconoclast did, I personally have had illegitimately acquired digital content and I understand the problem of our current system and its rules/laws, many of which are either created by pathocrats or enforced in such a way that they end up serving the pathocrats one way or another and unjustly "screw over" everyone else. I think it is not fair to force people to pay up front without knowing what they are buying and whether what they just bought is complete useless rubbish and a pack of lies and disinfo or something useful.

But having said that, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the reason Icono did not suggest that people download this for free but instead made a link for purchase was because technically it is not legal to freely aquire copyrighted material, and Icono probably just did not want to associate any illegal activity with this forum, no matter how trivial or popular the activity may be. Plus, it's in the forum rules. So if I downloaded a copyrighted song freely and liked it and wanted to suggest it on this forum, I also would try to avoid publicly suggesting a method to get it for free unless it was freely offered by the author. I would recommend places you can buy it, and let each individual acquire it using the means they best see fit. If that method is downloading it for free and paying for it if they like it, that is their business and I cast no judgment.

When Icono said he was always honest, that was the only statement I was perplexed about. Then again, he has been on the forum for a while, so maybe I did "jump the gun" with pointing out that it's not an honest statement without considering the context that he most likely knows this already. Ok next time I will try to consider the context more prudently and be brief and ask for elaboration first. And I hope if I say something that strikes someone as "wrong" or false etc, others will point it out to me as well because I have plenty of beams. If I had a particular meaning in mind and it's only "wrong" in a more general or absolute sense but true for a particular context, then I will elaborate, but if I really did not think it through, I'll be glad someone said something.

anart said:

Just to clarify, I have no problem with viewing before you pay or paying what you think things are worth or, quite frankly, anything anyone wants to do along those lines. My only point was that I found it funny that in one sentence Iconoclast said he was always honest and then said he didn't pay for the movie he linked for other people to purchase.

Click to expand...

Well, considering how we discuss things here, it ought not to be so funny. After all, we keep repeating Gurdjieff saying "Sincerity with everyone is weakness." This is just an example of that. A person can be deeply, brutally honest with themselves and still download and watch a movie without paying for it and say so to those who understand that saying of Gurdjieff's.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:

Also to clarify, I have no problem with what Iconoclast did.

Click to expand...

Well, talking about honesty, what was your purpose of referring to Nazi Germany in this case?

salleles said:

ScioAgapeOmnis said:

Also to clarify, I have no problem with what Iconoclast did.

Click to expand...

Well, talking about honesty, what was your purpose of referring to Nazi Germany in this case?

Click to expand...

It's the first thing that pops into my mind when I try to think of an obvious example where telling the truth is a really bad idea. Did you not understand the point I was trying to make with that reference, or specifically why I used Nazi Germany instead of something else?

SAO, you could have used any obvious example, that's not the point. I just think pulling the rather usual pronouncement "to be honest" firmly out of context doesn't make much sense, even if Iconoclast's "always honest" asks for some clarification ;)

In the light of this discussion, it is kind of weird to see Evidence of Revision ranked one and two in Google... as torrents.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=%22Evidence+of+Revision%22&meta=

it seems the main mistake i made was the phrasing - i should have written 'i always tell the truth' instead of 'i'm always honest' which are two slightly different things it seems.
and even then the statement wouldn't be 100% accurate, since there are some circumstances where it is impossible or unadvisable to tell the truth.

so i guess i'm not always telling the truth, but i do it as much as possible, because i detest lies and deceptions (of which almost all of this reality is made up of)
it goes against the nature of who i am.
therefore instead of lying to laura and saying 'i ordered it several weeks ago', which would probably have been easier, i choose to admit that i had watched a pirated copy.


and the main reason i linked to the wingtv page was for the summary (which is rather poor, but the only one i could find).


i had a feeling that wingtv weren't the original producers of this film, but i can't find the ones who are, as i'd much rather donate to them directly.


so, is there interest from the SOTT team if i were to buy the dvd and have it sent straight to you, or should i just go ahead and make my donation?

Iconoclast said:

so, is there interest from the SOTT team if i were to buy the dvd and have it sent straight to you, or should i just go ahead and make my donation?

Click to expand...

Question: is it downloadable from the net, as in possibly widely available?

As for donation - make your donation to wherever you think it will do the most good. The point is to "work for the Universe."