[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624475]And as Scorpio said, would pulling the books and revising them seriously be more scandalous than assassination? That's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It's also impossible to just poison him with carbon monoxide or something, no you have to shoot him.
I mean hell, that's the worst way to assassinate someone ever devised. Did the NWO get their intern to do that job?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624487]This may be a dumb question but how are these things any different?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29624471]. . .I am.
So, yay me? You're still being a complete nut who's world philosophy is about as water tight as a pasta strainer.[/QUOTE]
Look, buddy. I could go on and on about how you're a sheep and what not but I'm giving you more credit than that, and you're entitled to your opinion but for fucks sake atleast try to not be such an asshole all the time. Makes arguing with you kind of unappealing.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624487]This may be a dumb question but how are these things any different?[/QUOTE]
Let's set up an example.
Person A: Hey, I think Obama's an Islamic Socialist!
Person B: How do you know that?
Person A: You just need to respect my opinion.
The burden of proof is on Person A, since he's made an assertion that requires basis and evidence. Person B is not asserting his own idea that he is wrong simply by asking him how Person A knows this.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624487]This may be a dumb question but how are these things any different?[/QUOTE]
Because an assertion is a statement on the nature of reality, and criticism isn't?
[QUOTE=TH89;29624510][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh well I knew about that. Somehow didn't connect though. I see what you are saying though.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29624502]It's also impossible to just poison him with carbon monoxide or something, no you have to shoot him.
I mean hell, that's the worst way to assassinate someone ever devised. Did the NWO get their intern to do that job?[/QUOTE]
This as well. For as smart as you claim these NWO people to be, they resorting to just shooting him? I could understand your point if they'd gassed him or something, but they just shot him?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624518]Look, buddy. I could go on and on about how you're a sheep and what not but I'm giving you more credit than that, and you're entitled to your opinion but for fucks sake atleast try to not be such an asshole all the time. Makes arguing with you kind of unappealing.[/QUOTE]
Is the irony really not getting to you?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624528]Oh well I knew about that. Somehow didn't connect though. I see what you are saying though.[/QUOTE]
Anywho, back on topic.
And as Scorpio said, would pulling the books and revising them seriously be more scandalous than assassination? That's just ridiculous.
I've tried to provide just that with that book and aside from the fact 'he's a conspiracy theorist' I haven't heard a reason for why he shouldn't be trusted? Don't say it's because 'he's a nut' or whatever bullshit, actually prove it otherwise you're just as ignorant as you make me out to be.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624536]This as well. For as smart as you claim these NWO people to be, they resorting to just shooting him? I could understand your point if they'd gassed him or something, but they just shot him?[/QUOTE]
Hell, lock him in his shack and cut the gas line.
Once he's dead, remove any evidence of tampering and let sit for however long it takes someone to find out. By the time his body is discovered it'll be too decomposed to run an autopsy on.
See, I should be an assassin.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624550]Anywho, back on topic.
And as Scorpio said, would pulling the books and revising them seriously be more scandalous than assassination? That's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It would have added credibility if it got out it happened. Him dying is easy to cover up. Cops kill people all the time. But conspiracy book retractions? I've never heard of one. Wait a minute... :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624570]I've tried to provide just that with that book and aside from the fact 'he's a conspiracy theorist' I haven't heard a reason for why he shouldn't be trusted? Don't say it's because 'he's a nut' or whatever bullshit, actually prove it otherwise you're just as ignorant as you make me out to be.[/QUOTE]
You prove that the book is exempt from the conspiracy, by showing us the book? Isn't that kind of like proving that the bible is true with excerpts from the bible?
[QUOTE=The mouse;29614875]Only retards believe in conspiracies.[/QUOTE]
That's just what [b]THEY[/b] would say!
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624585]It would have added credibility if it got out it happened. Him dying is easy to cover up. Cops kill people all the time. But conspiracy book retractions? I've never heard of one. Wait a minute... :tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
A shooting is easier to cover up than a book revision from an author most people [B]already[/B] don't take that seriously?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624570]I've tried to provide just that with that book and aside from the fact 'he's a conspiracy theorist' I haven't heard a reason for why he shouldn't be trusted? Don't say it's because 'he's a nut' or whatever bullshit, actually prove it otherwise you're just as ignorant as you make me out to be.[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works. You don't prove that somebody isn't trustworthy, you prove they are.
If it worked that way then someone who had never met another human being and therefor has no history of lying would be the most trustworthy person on the planet.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624585]It would have added credibility if it got out it happened. Him dying is easy to cover up. Cops kill people all the time. But conspiracy book retractions? I've never heard of one. Wait a minute... :tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
And you didn't say he was killed by a cop. Was he? If so, I'd like a source on that as well.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624585]It would have added credibility if it got out it happened. Him dying is easy to cover up. Cops kill people all the time. But conspiracy book retractions? I've never heard of one. Wait a minute... :tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
But they clearly chose the complete worst way to cover up killing him. So they obviously don't care about covering anything up.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624609]A shooting is easier to cover up than a book revision from an author most people [B]already[/B] don't take that seriously?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, last time a book retraction about u.s. conspiracy happened it was on the news. I remember reading about it ITN.
Also to address your previous point, the bible isn't filled with government documents declassified, classified, and otherwise?
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624627]And you didn't say he was killed by a cop. Was he? If so, I'd like a source on that as well.[/QUOTE]
Its what the wikipedia says about him.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624609]A shooting is easier to cover up than a book revision from an author most people [B]already[/B] don't take that seriously?[/QUOTE]
A good NWO would be able to make sure he wouldn't be able to publish his book in the first place.
If William Hearst can keep Orson Welles from making movies, then how come the NWO can't keep this mofo from making books?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624659]I don't know, last time a book retraction about u.s. conspiracy happened it was on the news. I remember reading about it ITN.
Also to address your previous point, the bible isn't filled with government documents declassified, classified, and otherwise?
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
Its what the wikipedia says about him.[/QUOTE]
And a shooting didn't get out or seen?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29624680]A good NWO would be able to make sure he wouldn't be able to publish his book in the first place.
If William Hearst can keep Orson Welles from making movies, then how come the NWO can't keep this mofo from making books?[/QUOTE]
Didn't know that second fact. Cool story bro. Also, the reason he was able to get his information out there was because he spent 27,000 dollars reproducing his information for people all around the world. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done that, potentially put his life at risk, for misinformation. Especially a guy who was informed on top secret projects, as well as their misinformation projects names etc.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29624680]A good NWO would be able to make sure he wouldn't be able to publish his book in the first place.
If William Hearst can keep Orson Welles from making movies, then how come the NWO can't keep this mofo from making books?[/QUOTE]
It just raises too many questions.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624659]I don't know, last time a book retraction about u.s. conspiracy happened it was on the news. I remember reading about it ITN.
Also to address your previous point, the bible isn't filled with government documents declassified, classified, and otherwise?
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
Its what the wikipedia says about him.[/QUOTE]
wasn't that some memoirs that a soldier wrote
and he said he didn't really care and made the redactions the military asked him to make afterwords
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624695]Didn't know that second fact. Cool story bro.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps instead of resorting to a meme you could have actually tried to refute what he said.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624695]Didn't know that second fact. Cool story bro.[/QUOTE]
it's common knowledge
hearst didn't split any hairs about it really
my point still stands
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624570]I've tried to provide just that with that book and aside from the fact 'he's a conspiracy theorist' I haven't heard a reason for why he shouldn't be trusted? Don't say it's because 'he's a nut' or whatever bullshit, actually prove it otherwise you're just as ignorant as you make me out to be.[/QUOTE]
His behavior is consistent with that of a paranoid schizophrenic. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia[/url]
So we have two possible explanations:
1. He was an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
2. There is a massive (but inept) government conspiracy that involves space aliens and killed him.
So, how do we decide which one of these is more likely? There's a couple ways. Firstly, we can apply Occam's Razor, and choose explanation 1 since it's clearly simpler. But Occam's Razor isn't infallible. A better way is to ask ourselves whether there's a precedent for this sort of thing happening. Is there a precedent for the U.S. government assassinating its own citizens? Yes, although it's very uncommon. Is there a precedent for a global conspiracy on this scale? No. Is there a precedent for aliens coming to earth? No. Is there a precedent for paranoid schizophrenia going undiagnosed and unmedicated and leading the victim to believe all sorts of outlandish things? Yes! This happens all the time!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY[/media]
So we can conclude that, in all probability, explanation 2 is correct.
[QUOTE=TH89;29624740]His behavior is consistent with that of a paranoid schizophrenic. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia[/url]
So we have two possible explanations:
1. He was an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
2. There is a massive (but inept) government conspiracy that involves space aliens and killed him.
So, how do we decide which one of these is more likely? There's a couple ways. Firstly, we can apply Occam's Razor, and choose explanation 1 since it's clearly simpler. But Occam's Razor isn't infallible. A better way is to ask ourselves whether there's a precedent for this sort of thing happening. Is there a precedent for the U.S. government assassinating its own citizens? Yes, although it's very uncommon. Is there a precedent for a global conspiracy on this scale? No. Is there a precedent for aliens coming to earth? No. Is there a precedent for paranoid schizophrenia going undiagnosed and unmedicated and leading the victim to believe all sorts of outlandish things? Yes! This happens all the time!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY[/media]
So we can conclude that, in all probability, explanation 2 is correct.[/QUOTE]
How very scientific.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29624713]Perhaps instead of resorting to a meme you could have actually tried to refute what he said.[/QUOTE]
I edited my post.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;29624695]Didn't know that second fact. Cool story bro. Also, the reason he was able to get his information out there was because he spent 27,000 dollars reproducing his information for people all around the world. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done that, potentially put his life at risk, for misinformation. Especially a guy who was informed on top secret projects, as well as their misinformation projects names etc.[/QUOTE]
Unless he was a paranoid schizophrenic, in which case he would have happily ruined his life for nonsense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.