"You all look alike to me"!!!!!!

[kyleb]

best i can tell, the allgations against the moive are far more deceptive than the movie itself. although i am still looking for Joe to show me otherwise in regards to he Heston interview. do you have any evedence to back your claim Joe?

 

[Legion]

Given the damming nature of "Bowling" you'd think it would be easy to make a slander lawsuit stick if it was all lies. Yet that hasn't happened.

Cheers
Gubbi

Gubbi do not imply that sense there have been no legal allegations the information therefore must be true. There are some very clear and obvious deliberate misrepresentations of Heston (especially) throughout the movie.

I doubt Heston or the NRA would bother taking Moore to court. It would be a pointless waste of time that Moore would ultimately use to advertise his films.

 

[Ty]

Gubbi do not imply that sense there have been no legal allegations the information therefore must be true.

Absolutely true.

I doubt Heston or the NRA would bother taking Moore to court. It would be a pointless waste of time that Moore would ultimately use to advertise his films.

This I find difficult to believe though since the NRA is pretty darn good at levelling lawsuits. In addition, if proven true (that Moore intentionally slandered/libeled the NRA & Heston) then Moore would suffer a great blow to his credibility.

 

[Legion]

This I find difficult to believe though since the NRA is pretty darn good at levelling lawsuits. In addition, if proven true (that Moore intentionally slandered/libeled the NRA & Heston) then Moore would suffer a great blow to his credibility.

Would he? how would he defend himself? I can't see its worth their time to take down this tool, that is of course what Moore is. Who wants to fight Moore over semantics? You agree with my first statement to Gubbi yet your statements here seem to reinforce is fallacious implications.

There simply is no defense for Moore's equating the NRA with the KKK. Its nonsense. Hands down. Do you believe the NRA is inleague with the KKK? I should hope not.


I would hope that anyone with a mind can descern Moore hasn't credibility. I am willing to wager those who agree with him did so before he presented his "evidence." Furthermore, anyone who takes this man seriously and considers his "evidence" revealing and likewise presents themself as objective is lying to themselves and others.

The Heston matter was completely irresponsible and i would definately support Heston in a law suit against Moore:

http://hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

Moore is so politically biased and blind he doesn't even realize he validated part of Heston's speach:

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

 

[kyleb]

again, i want to handle this one peice at a time to aviod confusion so i will hold off on the speech remarks for now and focus on the interview.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Heston doesn't have the best memory, can't rightly fault Moore for that.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

the rally was held less than a year after the tragedy and Moore considered that insensitve so asked Heston if he agreed and would like to apologize; there is nothing missleading in those questions.

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

when Heston implies an inacurate sequence of events, Moore explains that the seqence is; shooting, rally planed, rally held. there is no advantage taken here.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)."

the reviewer does not suggest Heston lied, he mearly points out the claim Heston made.

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

oh the irony...

 

[Legion]

Heston doesn't have the best memory, can't rightly fault Moore for that.

No one does, however Moore used it to his advantage to paint a picture of Heston.

the rally was held less than a year after the tragedy and Moore considered that insensitve so asked Heston if he agreed and would like to apologize; there is nothing missleading in those questions.

There most certainly is. Moore is setting the stage to further misrepresent Heston's character. There is no reason outside of Moore's intention to misrepresent Heston for asking him such a loaded and leaded question.

when Heston implies an inacurate sequence of events, Moore explains that the seqence is; shooting, rally planed, rally held. there is no advantage taken here.

Again there is, Moore makes Heston out to be a liar when Heston was unaware at the time the a nature of the chain of events. He wasn't lying nor was there a reason for him to apologize for having the meeting. This is just another part in Moore's set stage to misrepresent Heston which started early on in the film as he portrayed Heston as completely indifferent to the suffering of people in Denver.

the reviewer does not suggest Heston lied, he mearly points out the claim Heston made.

I consider this a semantical argument.

Here is the quote again:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)."

Notice the author of this quote's emphasis on another wrt to gun rally. the later information in paranthesis suggests the author is pointing out a contradiction in Heston's words.

A very sound argument can be made here! The first interview to which the reviewer references in his emphasised "another" was also presented as happening after a slew of murders at Columbine. Moore earlier presented Heston as completely indifferent wrt to the deaths. I can certainly see from the words of the reviewer that one could gather the conclusion he is stating Heston is lying.

This matter aside, we are unable to read the reviewer's words as the link is apparently now broken. So, outside of the words we are presented i can not verify if there was any other information which was suggested by the author validating his belief Heston lied. I am immediately curious as to why you are so sure the reviewer's intention wasn't that Heston lied.

oh the irony...

Yes, that some one who claims to be objective really is far from it.

Here is another look at the Heston interview:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestoninterview.htm

another interesting look at the Heston interview:

http://hardylaw.net/hestonfilming.html

Then as Heston politely thanks Moore for the interview, shakes his hand and steps up to walk away, Moore drops another attack. He asks Heston: Don't you think it was "insensitive" to come to Flint and hold a big rally after this murder? Heston says that he was not aware of this murder when this rally was held. But Moore ignores it. "But, wouldn't you like to apologize to the people of Flint because you did this", Moore asks. Heston, now appearing to realize he's being had in this interview, replies, with contempt: "You want me to apologi- ME, to apologize to the people in Flint?" He doesn't. He has no reason to.

But Moore continues, asking Heston: "And wouldn't you also like to apologize to the people of Columbine for coming to their community after their horrible tragedy? Why do you go to places after they have these horrible tragedies?" Which Moore knows to be a false statement, thus being a baited question equal to me asking Moore "why do you starve yourself all the time?" Obviously making fun of his fattness, it is unlikely Moore would dignify my question with an answer or argument - and Heston takes the same route. The audience unfortunately doesn't understand this however because they've been indoctrinated to think Heston is the devil.

 

[kyleb]

Heston doesn't have the best memory, can't rightly fault Moore for that.

No one does, however Moore used it to his advantage to paint a picture of Heston.

so you say.

the rally was held less than a year after the tragedy and Moore considered that insensitve so asked Heston if he agreed and would like to apologize; there is nothing missleading in those questions.

There most certainly is. Moore is setting the stage to further misrepresent Heston's character. There is no reason outside of Moore's intention to misrepresent Heston for asking him such a loaded and leaded question.

Heston repersents himself with the responces he gives, Moore has no control over that.

when Heston implies an inacurate sequence of events, Moore explains that the seqence is; shooting, rally planed, rally held. there is no advantage taken here.

Again there is, Moore makes Heston out to be a liar when Heston was unaware at the time the a nature of the chain of events. He wasn't lying nor was there a reason for him to apologize for having the meeting. This is just another part in Moore's set stage to misrepresent Heston which started early on in the film as he portrayed Heston as completely indifferent to the suffering of people in Denver.

pointing out someone's mistaking recolection is not making them out to be a lier, it is standing up for the truth. in the situation in question, Heston askes "would i have canceled the ah..." and more simply points out that the rally was not planed until after the event to which Heston agrees; that hardly makes anyone look like a lier.

the reviewer does not suggest Heston lied, he mearly points out the claim Heston made.

I consider this a semantical argument.

the line "Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared" is simply a statment of fact. any argument against that is a semantical one.

Notice the author of this quote's emphasis on another wrt to gun rally. ...
A very sound argument can be made here! The first interview to which the reviewer references in his emphasised "another" was also presented as happening after a slew of murders at Columbine.

not a sound argument at all as the reviewer doesn't reference any interviews in that quote and is talking about the order of the shootings but the rallies which did happen in the order suggested by the term "another."

Moore earlier presented Heston as completely indifferent wrt to the deaths.

i'll come back to this after we get though the interview discussion. i might as well point out now though, your link to the comparison of the speachs is incomplete, Moore shows more of the speech than is in either collum on that page.

...the later information in paranthesis suggests the author is pointing out a contradiction in Heston's words.
...I can certainly see from the words of the reviewer that one could gather the conclusion he is stating Heston is lying.

if that is what you want to see then sure you will see it, but it was simply a statemnt of fact.

This matter aside, we are unable to read the reviewer's words as the link is apparently now broken. So, outside of the words we are presented i can not verify if there was any other information which was suggested by the author validating his belief Heston lied. I am immediately curious as to why you are so sure the reviewer's intention wasn't that Heston lied.

becuase he simply stated facts. even if the reviewer was wrong, one reviewer's opinion is hardly evedence that Moore misrepresented anything.

oh the irony...

Yes, that some one who claims to be objective really is far from it.

i'm not sure were that came from but you seem to be confused on the meaning of irony, what you discribe would be hypocraicy.

i didn't read the links you gave as i wan't any argument anyone finds relvent to be posted here directly so i don't have to go though analizing a buch of superfluous stuff. what you did quote from the second link is blatently inconsistent with what happens in the film, so i don't really want to waist time going into it either unless you insist.

 

[Legion]

so you say.

...because evidence provides so...

Heston repersents himself with the responces he gives, Moore has no control over that.

This is categorically false:

Here are some examples of Moore misrepresenting Heston:


Moore putting words into Heston's mouth

The Race Card trap

This is a very important point to notice, observe and understand in the interview. In this part of the scene, Moore sneakily sets the trap of making Heston support his thesis of the ignorant white man being afraid of the scary racial minority.

Moore: But you don't have any opinion as to why we're the unique country, the only country that does this? That kills each other at this level with guns.

Heston: Well, we have, probably a more mixed ethnicity, than other countries, some other countries

Moore: ...So you think it's an ethnic thing?

(Moore effectively projects his own racism onto the viewer, making Heston's response appear as a retraction.)

Heston: Well, I don't think it's - I wouldn't go as far as to say that - We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning

Here we have Moore simply taking Heston's words in his speach completely out of context.

http://hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

pointing out someone's mistaking recolection is not making them out to be a lier, it is standing up for the truth. in the situation in question, Heston askes "would i have canceled the ah..." and more simply points out that the rally was not planed until after the event to which Heston agrees; that hardly makes anyone look like a lier.

None of this however is significant to Moore's point which is to misrepresent Heston.

This wasn't a matter of correction it was a matter of taking advantage of Heston's ignorance at the time. Heston admitted he didn't know about what happened in Flint before the proposed rally which Moore suggests is some how insensitive innature. He asks Heston if he would like to apologize to the people in Flint which of course he doesn't and shouldn't have to. He did nothing wrong nor knew of the events prior.

These matters when added to Moore's finale (holding the picture of Kayla Rolland likewise implying Heston's ideologies are some how responsible for her death) only serve to support the notion Moore set a trap for Heston.

http://hardylaw.net/hestonfilming.html

the line "Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared" is simply a statment of fact. any argument against that is a semantical one.

Not so, Heston admitted to being completely unaware of what happened to Kayla Rolland. This goes hand in hand with Moore's implications concerning the Columbine shooting and following NRA meeting. It should come as no surprise people might catch onto Moore's misrepresentations.

not a sound argument at all as the reviewer doesn't reference any interviews in that quote and is talking about the order of the shootings but the rallies which did happen in the order suggested by the term "another."

It is very much a sound argument regardless of whether or not you choose ot see it as such. The author of the quote could easily have provided many other references, but, do to the fact the link is broken we can not confirm this.

i'll come back to this after we get though the interview discussion. i might as well point out now though, your link to the comparison of the speachs is incomplete, Moore shows more of the speech than is in either collum on that page.

I disagree here is why

Here is the clip of the speech that moore uses in his own rebuttle to allegations of misrepresentation. Here is Moore's rebuttle:

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech

the clip below was a link also provide in the above rebuttle.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/movie.php?mov=heston

Now this is certainly a semantical argument. No one is disputting Heston said these words. What is being disputed, and Moore damn well knows, is Heston was taken completely out of context and misrepresented.

Here is what Moore showed in his clips vs the actual speech:

-edit: The last part of the clip i can not find in his speech at all. If you can please point the statments out to me and where they are in the speech

http://hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

Here is Hardy's response to Moore's rebuttle:

Sure, Mike, you took out "So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy," because that made Heston sound too evil for your taste? Or was it "NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity" that appalled you? Or "shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton."?

Here again is Moore's clip, provided by him on his own webpage, in his own defense:

interesting notes which suggest doctoring of the film:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/movie.php?mov=heston

1.Notice that Heston's tie changes colors

2.Notice crowd sounds continue implying the crowd is still clapping at Heston's appearance while Moore flips to a poster.

3.Notice the back drop behind Heston has changed when the speech starts

4.Notice Moore left out the "Cold dead hands" quip in the clip that he actually had within the movie.

5.Moore claims the NRA held a "big gun rally" while deliberately cutting these statements from Heston's speech:

Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

More information concerning the speech:

Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:...

if that is what you want to see then sure you will see it, but it was simply a statemnt of fact.

Likewise if you wish to see the opposite then you sure will see it...

becuase he simply stated facts. even if the reviewer was wrong, one reviewer's opinion is hardly evedence that Moore misrepresented anything.

You are not provided all of what he stated therefore could you possibly know?

I should think at this time when provided all the evidence if it isn't obvious Moore has misrepresented Heston then you are simply refusing to see this fact.

i'm not sure were that came from but you seem to be confused on the meaning of irony, what you discribe would be hypocraicy.

Actually no,

i·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

You call yourself objective when in reality you are really biased.

However hypocrisy is fine as well.

BTW after using dictionary.com you ought to have realized hypocrisy is spelled as such and not "hypocraisy"

Perhaps next time, while attempting to look clever, you won't inevitably make yourself look foolish

i didn't read the links you gave as i wan't any argument anyone finds relvent to be posted here directly so i don't have to go though analizing a buch of superfluous stuff. what you did quote from the second link is blatently inconsistent with what happens in the film, so i don't really want to waist time going into it either unless you insist.

As you stated before:

if that is what you want to see then sure you will see it

 

[ChrisW]

Just to answer the question about why they don't sue for slander/liable...you can thank Larry Flint for that. His case in front of the Supreme coart paved the way to make it illegal to sue someone for slander/liable if it involves "political speech" which includes political satire. This is the reason politicians/political satirists are never sued for lieing to you and can lie through their teeth every time they run for election.

 

[kyleb]

-edit: The last part of the clip i can not find in his speech at all. If you can please point the statments out to me and where they are in the speech

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16127

We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forever more, let it always set on We, the People. Secure in our land of the free and home of the brave. I for one plan to do my part, thank you.

that isn't "completely indifferent to the suffering of people in Denver" by any means.

i didn't read the links you gave as i wan't any argument anyone finds relvent to be posted here directly so i don't have to go though analizing a buch of superfluous stuff. what you did quote from the second link is blatently inconsistent with what happens in the film, so i don't really want to waist time going into it either unless you insist.

As you stated before:

if that is what you want to see then sure you will see it

the thing is i want to see the truth; and it is troublsome to have to deal with crap like:

Then as Heston politely thanks Moore for the interview, shakes his hand and steps up to walk away, Moore drops another attack. He asks Heston: Don't you think it was "insensitive" to come to Flint and hold a big rally after this murder?

anyone can look at the movie and see for themselves that Heston did no such thing prior to that question, but only afterwards.

should i just accept that you have absoutly no respect for the truth you will argue your side regardless of facts? if so i really don't see any reason to bother addressing your arguments directly any further.

 

[Legion]

-edit: The last part of the clip i can not find in his speech at all. If you can please point the statments out to me and where they are in the speech

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16127

So what you are suggesting when you say Moore used more of Heston's speech he simply included the very end of it at the end of the clip? I hardly see this is a rebuttle to the obvious misrepresentations and omitions.

that isn't "completely indifferent to the suffering of people in Denver" by any means.

But this certainly is:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/movie.php?mov=heston

The clip starts out with a heavy condemnation of Heston and the NRA.

the thing is i want to see the truth; and it is troublsome to have to deal with crap like:

Then as Heston politely thanks Moore for the interview, shakes his hand and steps up to walk away, Moore drops another attack. He asks Heston: Don't you think it was "insensitive" to come to Flint and hold a big rally after this murder?

anyone can look at the movie and see for themselves that Heston did no such thing prior to that question, but only afterwards.

How does the change in events alter the nature of the question Moore asked. How the viewer recalled the scene in terms of Heston's movements isn't what is significant. It is what Moore said that is relevant.

This is hardly crap at all. I think you know this.

should i just accept that you have absoutly no respect for the truth you will argue your side regardless of facts?

Excuse me? The author of the website didn't recall the exact nature of how Heston's body motion played into the scene and some how my respect for the truth has come into question? Am i knowingly misrepresenting something? No. Moore is, question his integrity not mine.

if so i really don't see any reason to bother addressing your arguments directly any further.

Of course you don't. You have chosen an easy way out by citing what you saw as an incorrect recollection of how the scene played out and you have used this as a mean to question my intergrity, without reason, without cause. You haven't successfully argued against a single point i have made, all you have done is exactly what you did before; deny deny deny, attack my character or understanding, and then leave.

 

[kyleb]

So what you are suggesting when you say Moore used more of Heston's speech he simply included the very end of it at the end of the clip? I hardly see this is a rebuttle to the obvious misrepresentations and omitions.

it is proof that your are wrong on your statment here:

he portrayed Heston as completely indifferent to the suffering of people in Denver.

Excuse me? The author of the website didn't recall the exact nature of how Heston's body motion played into the scene and some how my respect for the truth has come into question?

so when the author you quote paints a picture contrary to the truth by suggesting that Moore fought Heston's desire to end the interview you are happy to use such misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit Moore? you have a really strong argument there.

 

[mondoterrifico]

Sometimes I wonder if people who aggresively criticize Bowling for Columbine have even watched the film in question.

 

[Legion]

Oh stop denying Kyleb. What you suggested doesn't in any way attack the position i presented. The entering of the final part of Heston's speech doesn't change Mooore's intent as mentioned in the first 10 seconds of the clip. His statements were wrong concerning the gun rally and Heston some how acting against these people's plea. Heston's supposed actions against these people pleas were how Moore was making Heston look indifferent. Moore avoided discussing the legallities behind the meeting, he cuts out large portions of Heston's speech where Heston confirms the meeting will be cut short, and doesn't address the issue of relation to scheduling of events at the NRA and the events at Columbine. On top of this he doctored in the "Cold Dead Hands" quip and left out whole sums of Heston's speech.

We have a clear cut case of lying here.

 

[Legion]

Sometimes I wonder if people who aggresively criticize Bowling for Columbine have even watched the film in question.

Sometimes i wonder if those you undenyingly support the movie went in to watch the movie with their minds already made up concerning its accuracy.

It really shocks me people who watch this move and take it to heart consider themselves objective. When put to the test they simply can't defend their arguments in support of the movie.

 

[kyleb]

you are doing a good enough job defeating your own arguments with comments like:

he doctored in the "Cold Dead Hands" quip

when the clip you posted shows the movie from Moore's introduction of the Heston speach to the conclusion of it and there is no "Cold Dead Hands" quote to be found.

 

[Legion]

you are doing a good enough job defeating your own arguments with comments like:

he doctored in the "Cold Dead Hands" quip

when the clip you posted shows the movie from Moore's introduction of the Heston speach to the conclusion of it and there is no "Cold Dead Hands" quote to be found.

Really? Except for the fact the clip I posted from Moore's own website who editted out the "Cold Dead Hands" quip still includes the footage from the same speech where Heston made the quip? Notice the footage still starts with Heston in a completely different setting wearing a completely different tie and then suddenly branches over to his other speech all the while keeping the claping running leading one to believe the two events overlap.

 

[Ty]

Would he? how would he defend himself?

If Moore couldn't defend himself then the NRA would win, yes?

I can't see its worth their time to take down this tool, that is of course what Moore is.

Are you kidding me? Everyone else on the right would LOVE to take Moore down. O'reilly, Coulter, Hannity, etc.

Who wants to fight Moore over semantics? You agree with my first statement to Gubbi yet your statements here seem to reinforce is fallacious implications.

Your two statements are not logically tied together. The first statement is a logical truth. The second is opinion, opinion I disagree with. Note that I am NOT saying that Moore is telling the truth OR lying. I am merely disagreeing with your belief WHY the NRA hasn't sued Moore yet. Stop reading between the lines and the discussion can remain on point.

 

[kyleb]

"edited out", lol. his clip shows everything from right before his voice-over introduction to the speech to the conclusion of the speech exactly as it happens in the movie, nothing is edited out. yes the applause is blended between the two scenes but that is standard practice in movie editing, it is hardly "leading one to believe the two events overlap" as you claim when quite clearly "Heston in a completely different setting wearing a completely different tie" as you pointed out yourself. heck not only is his tie different but his shirt and jacket are too. the "cold dead hands" catch phrase is something Heston is famous for and was obviously used as familiar introduction to Heston and the NRA, if Moore really wanted to make it look like the comment was made at the Denver event he surely could have got footage of Heson making the comment at least somewhat matching attire.

 

[Legion]

"edited out", lol. his clip shows everything from right before his voice-over introduction to the speech to the conclusion of the speech exactly as it happens in the movie, nothing is edited out.

Bull.

From Moore's own rebuttle website:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration.

yes the applause is blended between the two scenes but that is standard practice in movie editing, it is hardly "leading one to believe the two events overlap" as you claim when quite clearly "Heston in a completely different setting wearing a completely different tie" as you pointed out yourself.

Or, quite simply, to tie one conveyed image to another for the sake of presenting a persona. This is exactly the case we see withing B4C. The "Cold Dead Hands" quip procedes a character indictment of Heston and the NRA by Moore which leads us to believe, that inspite of the sufferings of the people in denver, inspite their please for him not to come, he came anyway. The speech continues, as it was edited, to convey a very indifferent Heston, which his speech does anything but. Moore misrepresents the "big gun rally" aspect as well. This of course was a legally required meeting who's activities were canceled inlight of the current events. Heston makes note of this in his speech:

As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity

But of course we can't trust Moore to be honest about any of this. Even at his own website he can't help but ridicule the opposition to his arguments. He simply refers to these individuals as any more than a collection of gun nuts:

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

Why would their leader, Heston look bad if not by the effort of Moore? Notice Moore's comments are directed at the accussations concerning the doctoring of Heston's Denver speech. Why would Moore imply Heston looks bad intercut with the father's words if that weren't the intention of Moore? He trips himself up in his own reasoning by admitting intent to tarnish Heston. Heston would only look bad in light of the fact Moore doctored his speech!

heck not only is his tie different but his shirt and jacket are too. the "cold dead hands" catch phrase is something Heston is famous for and was obviously used as familiar introduction to Heston and the NRA, if Moore really wanted to make it look like the comment was made at the Denver event he surely could have got footage of Heson making the comment at least somewhat matching attire.

This is a very weak argument and i think you know you are just splitting hairs. In light of all other implications and out right misrepresentations by Moore i can not simply dismiss this important inclusion (one Moore deliberately left out of his own rebuttle piece) as just merely quoting Heston. No, Moore was trying to convey Heston in a certain light.