In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Watch stolen Honor (for free)
gun_runner
Member Posts: 8,999
www.stolenhonor.com
Larry
Larry
Comments
Consider the source, then watch it again. Sherwood is as far right as Moore is far left.
As far as I'm concerned, once a liar, always a liar---Sherwood's credibility is as shot as Dan Rather's.
Here is one article, it can be found at:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409130003
Stolen Honor producer Sherwood falsely claimed Winter Soldier investigation "utterly discredited"
Referring to a 1971 investigation organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in which Vietnam veterans described atrocities that they had witnessed or participated in, right-wing film producer Carlton Sherwood (producer of the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal) falsely claimed that "everything that came from the Winter Soldiers hearing has been utterly discredited through volumes and volumes of books." In fact, research by Media Matters for America has uncovered no evidence that any witness testifying in the 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit has had his story discredited.
Sherwood was disputing claims by VVAW member and Winter Soldier witness Kenneth J. Campbell on the September 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Campbell said that testimony by him and other Winter Soldier witnesses formed the factual basis for Senator John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Sherwood attempted to discredit the Winter Soldier investigation, Campbell defended himself and the other veterans who testified:
SHERWOOD: And as far as what Ken said, everything that came from the Winter Soldiers hearing has been utterly discredited through volumes and volumes of books and not one...
CAMPBELL: That's untrue.
There was only one person in the Vietnam Vets Against the War that was uncovered as having been a sergeant when he said he was a captain. Otherwise, the rest of the folks, we all brought our DD-214s [a document issued to military members upon separation from active service] that day. I brought mine today, in case you challenged my credibility. And we were not frauds. And we did do or see or participate in what we said we did.
As MMFA has previously documented, conservative historian Guenter Lewy claimed in his 1978 book, America in Vietnam, that a Naval Investigative Service report into the Winter Soldier allegations had discredited many of the witnesses and accounts, and in some cases impostors had assumed the identities of real veterans who were not present at the investigation. But Naval Criminal Investigative Service public affairs specialist Paul O'Donnell told the Chicago Tribune: "We have not been able to confirm the existence of this report, but it's also possible that such records could have been destroyed or misplaced." And Lewy himself admitted to The Baltimore Sun that "he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents." Apart from Lewy's allegations, a search by MMFA turned up no other reports of evidence that any Winter Soldier witness was an impostor.
MMFA has documented Sherwood's previous smears against Kerry.
Try to tell him the things you say The Tinman.
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state: "Seperation of Church and State".
"Those who beat their guns into plow shares; will plow for those who don't."
"Isaiah 5:20 ?Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
"I would not mind being the last man on earth just to see if all those girls were telling me the truth"
"I would not mind being the last man on earth just to see if all those girls were telling me the truth"
french people don't speak german, Thank my dad for that!!
You are right tinman, But the fact that you would even bring up something in horseface's favor, to us, means that you are a horseface lover. Once a horseface, always a horseface.
Who, pray tell, is "us" and do you speak for all of "them??" LOL, people like you simply prove my point that it is so easy to trod on down the path of the logical fallacy. When, in a debate, you resort to name-calling, to the learned, it's obvious that you have lost the debate, yet to the ignorant, this concept is lost.
And the sad thing is, "people like you," don't even recognize your shortcomings. I don't mean this as a personal insult---really, I don't, but it is so frustrating to try and hold a cogent conversation with someone who answers every question, every challenge with "Yeah, but my dad can beat up your dad!!" Where is the logic in that statement?? Yet, when a person resorts to name-calling, that is exactly the line of logic they are using.
To illustrate:
GunRunner posted a link to a film clip narrated by Carlton Sherwood. I suggested that Sherwood was a liar, and posted a link to an article hosted by CNN to support my allegation. I also suggested that "Once a liar, always a liar." Let's look at that statement logically. Can a person "take away a lie, once it is told?" Well, some may argue "yes," by posting a retraction. I say, no, once the deed is done, you can't take it back. Sort of like once you take a left turn, you can't "unleft" the turn. So, it logically follows that if a person lies once, it is more probable than not that they will lie again. Following this same logic of "once a liar, always a liar," then it follows that Sherwoods comments on his film clip are untrue also. It doesn't matter if they are, or they are not, Sherwood claims he is a journalist, and the whole foundation of a journalist is their credibility. Credibility, like honor, once lost is difficult to regain. Continuing this logic (I haven't lost you yet, have I?), it's reasonable to lend little credence to Sherwood and the "Story" he is narrating. That's all I was pointing on in my post.
Now, let's look at the logical line that some on this thread follow---it reminds me of a scene from Monty Python. You know the scene I'm talking about----the scene where the townpeople have a witch and they want to burn her. Their ultimate line of logic was "If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood, and will float, and thus will burn." Humorous as that scene is, it is a realistic example of the line of logic those ignorant of such things can follow. As an example, I post a message that Sherwood is a liar, and someone here assumes that I'm a Kerry supporter. I gotta ask "How do you figure??" The logic escapes me? Where is the logical line that connects my calling Sherwood a liar to me supporting Kerry? Still others, following the same flawed logic, fall into the same lockstep path and suggest that I am either brainless or heartless---they can't figure it out.
Mr. Brassman reaches WAAAAAAAY out there and suggests that I have insulted his veteran brother. Again, I ask, how do you equate me calling Sherwood a liar to insulting Vietnam Vets?? Do you see the path that some are following? Gawd, like I said, it is incredibly funny that someone could make these assumptions and logical connections. But the truly scary thing is that some of these people are armed and are going to vote.
I'm sorry for the long essay, but the logic courses I took in college were a bit more in-depth than I care to go into right now. If this makes me a Horseface, than I guess I gotta live with it. I'll bring myself down to your level, Rovrman, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."