Political Crossfire Forums

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

Why is it some conspiracy theorists feel it is not necessary for them to validate their claims with sources? For some reason they think that just because they said it, then it must be true and no further validation is required even when they are asked for it.

What kind of special dispensation do conspiracy theorists get that makes it so they don't have to back up their claims?

Is it because they know they're usually just pulling their "facts" from their nether regions and HAVE no source?

Is it because they know their sources are usually so fraught with credibility problems that it makes them look bad for using these sources?

Is it because they often like to only use part of a story and don't want to expose anyone to the whole story because it would expose their scam?

I am guessing it is all of these reasons. Anyone have some more reasons to add? How about any conspiracy theorists out there that like to use this technique? Psholtz? Krim? Gremlin? Claudia? Care to shed any light on this technique and the reasoning behind using it?

krims · Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 136 Location: kamchatka

Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.

No. I question their "proof". I've asked you specifically for proof to back up your claims that I lie. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence.

krims · Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 136 Location: kamchatka

My evidence is every honest person's opinion on this forum. Anyone who has at least some critical judgement can tell that you are a dishonest weasle.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Patriot911 wrote: krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.

No. I question their "proof". I've asked you specifically for proof to back up your claims that I lie. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence.
You keep repeating that sentence over and over and over again like it's a broken record going out of style.. :lol:

Talk about Pavlovian conditioning... :wink:

The fact is, evidence *has* been presented to you multiple times, by multiple people on this forum. You either are choosing (very willfully) to ignore it, or else you're lying.. b/c if not, then you would have long ago changed your tune (no pun intended) to something more like "You provide evidence for me to look at, but I find it wanting and unconvincing"..

If you want people to respect you more, at least debate either (a) more truthfully; or (b) more attentatively..

Free Thinkr · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject:

krims wrote: My evidence is every honest person's opinion on this forum. Anyone who has at least some critical judgement can tell that you are a dishonest weasle.
Restating your claim does not constitute proof.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.
Then how come that they almost never post any links?

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Narvik wrote: krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.
Then how come that they almost never post any links?
b/c it's not something that can be communicated in your world of 2-seconds sound bites and video clips. Such media (as you see on the MSM) has been custom-tailored to feed the imagination of peasant-slaves. It's unlikely that a peasant-slave will ever comprehend the world around him, much less the political machinations of which he is an unwittingly pawn.

Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.

No. I question their "proof". I've asked you specifically for proof to back up your claims that I lie. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence.
You keep repeating that sentence over and over and over again like it's a broken record going out of style.. :lol:

Talk about Pavlovian conditioning... :wink:

The fact is, evidence *has* been presented to you multiple times, by multiple people on this forum. You either are choosing (very willfully) to ignore it, or else you're lying.. b/c if not, then you would have long ago changed your tune (no pun intended) to something more like "You provide evidence for me to look at, but I find it wanting and unconvincing"..

If you want people to respect you more, at least debate either (a) more truthfully; or (b) more attentatively..

Care to show where Krims provided any proof in any form that shows I lied? Yes, I've repeated myself numerous times to Krims today. He has yet to provide any evidence. This is an absolutely true statement.

As for 9/11 proof, I guess I should be more specific. Proof that actually IS proof, not made up bullsh!t. Proof that would actually stand up in a court of law. Hard evidence. Conjecture isn't proof. Coincidence isn't proof. Claims from jr. detecive wannabes isn't proof. Statements taken out of context isn't proof. News articles that are later shown to be in error aren't proof no matter HOW many times you repost them.

Apparently we have different definitions of proof. To me, proof is something you can't refute. I have yet to see this kind of proof from the conspiracy crowd.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.

No. I question their "proof". I've asked you specifically for proof to back up your claims that I lie. You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence.
You keep repeating that sentence over and over and over again like it's a broken record going out of style.. :lol:

Talk about Pavlovian conditioning... :wink:

The fact is, evidence *has* been presented to you multiple times, by multiple people on this forum. You either are choosing (very willfully) to ignore it, or else you're lying.. b/c if not, then you would have long ago changed your tune (no pun intended) to something more like "You provide evidence for me to look at, but I find it wanting and unconvincing"..

If you want people to respect you more, at least debate either (a) more truthfully; or (b) more attentatively..

Care to show where Krims provided any proof in any form that shows I lied? Yes, I've repeated myself numerous times to Krims today. He has yet to provide any evidence. This is an absolutely true statement.

As for 9/11 proof, I guess I should be more specific. Proof that actually IS proof, not made up bullsh!t. Proof that would actually stand up in a court of law. Hard evidence. Conjecture isn't proof. Coincidence isn't proof. Claims from jr. detecive wannabes isn't proof. Statements taken out of context isn't proof. News articles that are later shown to be in error aren't proof no matter HOW many times you repost them.

Apparently we have different definitions of proof. To me, proof is something you can't refute. I have yet to see this kind of proof from the conspiracy crowd.
You're debating semantics again.. :lol:

krims · Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 136 Location: kamchatka

How does a person prove to a liar that he is a liar. When the person corners the liar, the liar will act stupid, twist the meaning of what the person said, take it as an outrageous personal insult, act incredulous, go off on a tangent, etc. etc.

If you really want proof then go over psholtz's conversations with you. He has been more than generous with his time and patience for you. I think it's about time you've acknowledged all that he's done for you.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

OK. Then provide proof that can not be refuted. For the most part you don't provide any proof of any kind whatsoever, so you're not exactly one to talk. ;-)

This is why I ask for hard evidence or evidence that would hold up in a court of law. This evidence has to live up to certain criteria in order to be considered evidence. 9/11 deniers like to claim their guesses are proof, but their guesswork is nothing more than an infantile form of mental masturbation and should be treated as such.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

krims wrote: How does a person prove to a liar that he is a liar. When the person corners the liar, the liar will act stupid, twist the meaning of what the person said, take it as an outrageous personal insult, act incredulous, go off on a tangent, etc. etc.

If you really want proof then go over psholtz's conversations with you. He has been more than generous with his time and patience for you. I think it's about time you've acknowledged all that he's done for you.

One proves one is a liar by pointing out the lies and proving they are lies. That is the first step. Whether or not the person accused can refute the lie is a different matter. As it stands, you've still failed to provide any kind of proof whatsoever. You've claimed I am a liar. Since you cannot prove this point, this makes your claim an untrue statement. Since what you said was said knowing there is no proof and thus there can be no lie on my part, it makes it an intentional act which is the definition of a lie; a statement made known by the person making the statement to be false.

See? There. I just proved you lied. Not wrong, but knowingly lied. Now it is up to you to prove I am wrong.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: krims wrote: Conspiracy theorists have backed up their claims with plenty of proof. You just ignored it.
Then how come that they almost never post any links?
It's unlikely that a peasant-slave will ever comprehend the world around him, much less the political machinations of which he is an unwittingly pawn.
That's because the peasant-slave isn't isn't fed with enough information.

Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Narvik wrote: Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?
He wasn't killed for "Treason: New World Order"...

He was killed for a new, even more damaging book that he was working on.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: How does a person prove to a liar that he is a liar. When the person corners the liar, the liar will act stupid, twist the meaning of what the person said, take it as an outrageous personal insult, act incredulous, go off on a tangent, etc. etc.

Is that what liars do? :lol:

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?
He wasn't killed for "Treason: New World Order"...

He was killed for a new, even more damaging book that he was working on.
You still havn't proved that he was killed by the USG

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Narvik wrote: psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?
He wasn't killed for "Treason: New World Order"...

He was killed for a new, even more damaging book that he was working on.
You still havn't proved that he was killed by the USG
You can find evidence confirming this, if you so desire.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?
He wasn't killed for "Treason: New World Order"...

He was killed for a new, even more damaging book that he was working on.
You still havn't proved that he was killed by the USG
You can find evidence confirming this, if you so desire.
That's what most conspiracy nuts say..
That's what i've been talking about...
You don't give links... you say that ypu're right.. you let others find evidence... why don't you give those that argue with evidence?
I don't like the current US goverment and i know Bush is half-mad... But I have no need to search if it's even more corrupt or something else than I think... Give a link to me if you want to spread the word.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6907 Location: Denver, CO

Narvik wrote: psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: psholtz wrote: Narvik wrote: Quote:
Freemen read books.

One good book is "Treason: the New World Order" by Gurudas.

It's definitely one of the books that helped wake me up.

The author of this book was later killed by the USG for what he knew and wrote about.
Why was he alowed to publish the book?
Have you any proof to support that he was killed by the USG?
He wasn't killed for "Treason: New World Order"...

He was killed for a new, even more damaging book that he was working on.
You still havn't proved that he was killed by the USG
You can find evidence confirming this, if you so desire.
That's what most conspiracy nuts say..
That's what i've been talking about...
You don't give links... you say that ypu're right.. you let others find evidence... why don't you give those that argue with evidence?
I don't like the current US goverment and i know Bush is half-mad... But I have no need to search if it's even more corrupt or something else than I think... Give a link to me if you want to spread the word.
Welcome to my world. :lol: This is exactly what I am talking about when I started this thread. We are just suppose to take Psholtz at his word or, if we are so inclined, go try to do Psholtz's work for him. Imagine his surprise if someone actually found proof of one of his ridiculous allegations! In the mean time Psholtz will continue to make outrageous claims without backing them up in order to "inform" the more gullible among us while pretending he is somehow superior to everyone else. :roll: