Another perfect day, but that is what they say about Queensland, Beautiful One day, perfect the next!
I saw it! Cannot wait until you do now so we can discuss it.
Was it good? I will find it and then we can discuss.... J
I still see this as just bashing Joe, the claims he made that were untruthful were considered untruthful according to Mrs Cantrell, and what else would she say? She was annoyed, embarrassed and about to make a squillion from the inconvenience. What would you do? The living conditions of a grieving widow were exaggerated, that is the extent of his alleged lying.
We do know that they were lies! the extent of the lying was not restricted to the poverty/conditions depicted as you alluded to. The comments about the widows blank expression, the fact she had the same expression at the funeral etc etc are nothing to do with the depiction of poverty but plain outright lies. Have you see the part about his favourite song he used to sing etc...part of Joes fantasy world that seemed to work well in Hollywood.
False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.
False Light is being covered in a story without your permission and being portrayed in an unsavoury light pretty much from what I read here, and that was certainly the case with Cantrell.
I have not seen the freelance worker, the only description that I can find that conflicts with senior editor is "Political Journalist" and he wrote the award wining Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse in 1974, indicating tenure.
I have been unable to find staff lists for The Rolling Stone, but either way, both sources he was at the Rolling Stone in 1971, enough time to establish his position and in no conceivable desperate need of a breaking story. Of course Wikipedia is the previous link quoted which claims he was senior editor. A great many sites on the net simply regurgitate Wikipedia but we know he was employed from 1971 at Rolling Stone and both work descriptions are of respectable positions.
He went on to become senior editor at the Rolling stone but was first contacted to do a freelance piece on Narcotics 1971 (maybe due to his own addiction to drink and drugs)
Well sort of, basically the yard changed hands in 1968 when Litton bought it, at this point the Ingalls yard was on the East bank and they moved to the West bank and built the new development which took 4 years. The actual shipyard that the two men were at was actually to the North of the current Ingalls yard, called Shaupeter Shipping yard, this was abandoned at the time...strange why Ingalls would have security covering another yard don’t you think. Oh and interesting that a high etc military establishment would allow some two- bit reporter access to footage
There were no atomic weapons at the time from what I have seen, the first nuclear sub was in 1974, again though this does beg the question why would they let Joe see this footage with such high security and monitoring?
It was unchallenged because it was a flippant comment about a make-believe investigation in a comic book style magazine...hardly needed any ones attention did it? And if he really did have the smoking gun that could prove it a hoax/fake/lie etc then surely biggest scoop of the year seeing as it was a global reported event.
Phil was known for making his own mind up. He felt he had already shown enough dishonesty to say the case was a setup. Phil is generally independent in his investigations.
I think that Hynek and Klass knew that Ingall was the primary military ship builder at the time and realised that the compound would by default have high security which by all counts was never breached.
Why would Joe even mention the Toll Booths when he had such a smoking gun piece of evidence to prove it a lie?
As for high security never breached...why let Joe have access? Why have cameras pointing to another yard?
As I mentioned once before he could be telling the truth, i.e. they had cameras in ‘range’..not pointing at location or even recording, he doesn’t actually say this anywhere...the usual clever wording as seen previously when used to portray imaginary conversations/meetings with Mrs Cantrell.
I don’t think its case of accepting him as a liar or proving so, at the moment we have some obscure wording about an ‘investigation’. Let me put it another way, if the claim was that the video had captured the event would we ask for evidence or would we accept a third hand account that it exists? You would have a field day without breaking a sweat.
He concludes that he believes the men had an experience! What more can he say? He has no evidence to claim ET but has enough to confirm they had an experience with a UFO. Imagine if he concluded a ‘real abduction’....skeptics and field day once again spring to mind J
No Kids are not pawns, the case went to supreme court where a Judge ruled based on facts, no jurors involved here J and no the fictional element is his wording as to how Mrs Cantrell looked and acted (even though she wasn’t there)
Neither do I as he had a little snippet in a comic style magazine without any substance just a wild claim he had seen evidence proving it a lie...yes of course you did Joe (good weed or good beer?) I think Klass confirmed Hicksons evaluation of the Lawyers intentions and as such fired him ....this is greatly in Hicksons favour.
I think you are placing much emphasis on false light cases and making them out to be more serious than they are. Other notable example include a 96 year old woman who was quoted as being pregnant in an article (she received 1.5 million in damages!!!!) and another case against Playgirl magazine was about the placement of headlines. False light is in general used for the lesser claims as far as I can tell. The cases were not only against Joe either, he is the more notable party involved here. What is the second case against Joe? I read the Wiki entry, I cannot make out what it is saying here:
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing (1974) is one of only two false light cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and involved Eszterhas.
Well the publishing firm was in the limelight because they ran with the article although not directly responsible for the lies put forward. Also the photographer, he had done nothing wrong just took pictures....I am sure he never put pen to paper or photographed an invisible space and claimed it to be Mrs Cantrell J
I don’t agree we have the two men who gave names Larry and Raymond who from the highway witnessed a blue light. We then have Mike Cataldo, who with two other Naval guys (he gave the names) reported a blue light. Ok granted the three calls received by the officer were anonymous and therefore I won’t count them, or don’t need them, the other accounts suffice to corroborate the UFO.
There were no cameras at the toll booths. And at the time the yard wasn’t a military spec builder, Ingalls that is.....actually they were not even at Ingalls!!!!
Well yes it has been proven in a court of LAW that he lied, he describes Cantrells facial expressions at both home and at the funeral plus other plain downright lies...hence supreme court verdict.
Joe’s comments in the comic are a waste of time. He hasn’t even actually stated that the cameras were pointing to spot or that they were recording.
Come on Joe where is tis smoking gun?
‘Subsequent investigation by Quillius found footage from local shipyard showing the incident.....’ sound familiar?
Edited by quillius, 22 May 2012 - 01:36 PM.