1984 is here.

Author
Discussion

Not-The-Messiah

3,610 posts

80 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
captain_cynic said:
F1GTRUeno said:
It does seem like you want there to be dirt as validation for your posts and nothing we say or link to in the process of trying to argue against you is going to sway your already locked in position that there MUST be dirt because we aren't being told about it.
It is a waste of time to try and argue with sense and reason with these conspiracy theorists. They've utterly convinced themselves of "the truth" that any attempt to break their cognitive dissonance with verifiable fact will be met with violent resistance.

For them,
The past was erased, the erasure forgotten, the lie became truth.

Just mock them as they aren't worth any more effort.
Agree it's why I gave up on the Trump thread.

Byker28i

58,795 posts

216 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all

vetrof

2,464 posts

172 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
F1GTRUeno said:
It does seem like you want there to be dirt as validation for your posts and nothing we say or link to in the process of trying to argue against you is going to sway your already locked in position that there MUST be dirt because we aren't being told about it.
On the contrary, it's not my position that's locked in.
It's those posters who know and are asserting it's not true for all manner of reasons. Trump bad, the Russians, Trump family corruption, even some genius babbling on about warranties and serial numbers, the list goes on.
Even Byker has said the photos and some mails are real, I wonder how we can tell which are real and which aren't.

All the whatabouterry, squirrels and tangential links are not enough to be able to 100% convince me that this doesn't warrant a deeper look.
If it all turns out to be nonsense, then fair enough move on. But 'I don't want it to be true so it can't be' doesn't work for me and I'm surprised that it does for others.

Edit: What has been said or linked do you think puts this whole thing to bed? I will look at them again to see if I can be satisfied.



Edited by vetrof on Thursday 22 October 08:18

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Well, do let us know what you find after doing "research"

captain_cynic

11,872 posts

94 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Sam.M said:
Well, do let us know what you find after doing "research"
Don't do this.... Give us your data, publish your methodology and let us see if we can verify your conclusions independently.

That is how research works.

rscott

14,689 posts

190 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Sam.M said:
Well, do let us know what you find after doing "research"
It would appear to be very selective "research" - he already seems to have decided to ignore the minor matter of the hard drive not having been manufactured at the time it was listed on the invoice.

vetrof

2,464 posts

172 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
captain_cynic said:
Sam.M said:
Well, do let us know what you find after doing "research"
Don't do this.... Give us your data, publish your methodology and let us see if we can verify your conclusions independently.

That is how research works.
Surely it is those who have reached a conclusion that can do that.
That's pretty much all I'm asking for.

captain_cynic

11,872 posts

94 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
vetrof said:
captain_cynic said:
Sam.M said:
Well, do let us know what you find after doing "research"
Don't do this.... Give us your data, publish your methodology and let us see if we can verify your conclusions independently.

That is how research works.
Surely it is those who have reached a conclusion that can do that.
That's pretty much all I'm asking for.
Nope.

You're making the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

Others who have supported their conclusions with data have not reached the same conclusions as you.

Also, another axiom from actual scientists... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

vetrof

2,464 posts

172 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
What extraordinary claims do you think I am making? What conclusions do you think I have drawn?

Wrathalanche

696 posts

139 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
vetrof said:
On the contrary, it's not my position that's locked in.
It's those posters who know and are asserting it's not true for all manner of reasons. Trump bad, the Russians, Trump family corruption, even some genius babbling on about warranties and serial numbers, the list goes on.
Even Byker has said the photos and some mails are real, I wonder how we can tell which are real and which aren't.

All the whatabouterry, squirrels and tangential links are not enough to be able to 100% convince me that this doesn't warrant a deeper look.
If it all turns out to be nonsense, then fair enough move on. But 'I don't want it to be true so it can't be' doesn't work for me and I'm surprised that it does for others.
My bold for emphasis. On the first - I tried to explain earlier how we'd know but you were pretty flippantly dismissive. The person who currently claims to hold the raw data (Rudy) can provide that to reputable independent sources of his choosing that can then verify if an email is real or not from the meta data, and share that analysis with the rest of the world for scrutiny. He so far has not done so, and instead has ONLY provided what is essentially a print out of it (a PDF) which contains absolutely no meta data that could prove legitimacy.

On the second - what kind of deeper look do you mean? People on the internet digging in to it? You know that these hard drives have been in the possession of the FBI since December 2019, yeah? Isn't that deep enough? I'd personally be quite keen to hear what the FBI's assessment contains, but since its almost been a year with no indictments, I'm not expecting much there. But in mean time, if that doesn't satisfy you and want other intrepid homespun investigators to look into it for you, then that again would require Giuliani to release the raw data. What part of this do you not get?

So when a source won't provide news outlets with verifiable evidence, those press outlets will refuse to break the story. When one outlet decides to debase themselves - to the point where the author won't even put his name on it, falsely name a second person as a co-author, and then take a byline from a third person willingly who is a diehard Bannon/Stone/Hannity fangirl - other aggregating platforms such as Twitter or Facebook have to decide whether they want to be responsible for giving something unlimited amounts of air that might turn out to be complete lies. Why would they want to be complicit in that?

Had there been a media story on Hunter Biden that ran thanks to access to the slightest bit of verifiable evidence, then they wouldn't have taken any action to suppress the story at all.

dasigty

Original Poster:

587 posts

80 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
pinchmeimdreamin said:
So in an attempt to distance this thread from the Trump thread,

Can anyone point out 3 stories ( not conspiracy theories) that SM/MSM is hiding ?
1) The accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden with far more evidence than against Kavanaugh

2) The opposing views on covid, only Doctors and Scientists who follow the narrative.

3) Any serious look into Epstein's "Suicide".

Countdown

39,685 posts

195 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
dasigty said:
1) The accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden with far more evidence than against Kavanaugh

2) The opposing views on covid, only Doctors and Scientists who follow the narrative.

3) Any serious look into Epstein's "Suicide".
1. They're not hiding those stories. They're simply not giving much time to them. Because they're bullst.


captain_cynic

11,872 posts

94 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Countdown said:
dasigty said:
1) The accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden with far more evidence than against Kavanaugh

2) The opposing views on covid, only Doctors and Scientists who follow the narrative.

3) Any serious look into Epstein's "Suicide".
1. They're not hiding those stories. They're simply not giving much time to them. Because they're bullst.
This

Reputable news agencies need to worry about their reputation. Printing easily disproved lies is not conducive to that.

There's no conspiracy to hide the truth... Just a bunch of conspiracy theorists trying to hide from the truth.

dasigty

Original Poster:

587 posts

80 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Countdown said:
1. They're not hiding those stories. They're simply not giving much time to them. Because they're bullst.
Kavanaugh was eventually proved to be bullst, but the stories were on every front page and ran for weeks.

Yes or No ?.


928 GTS

449 posts

94 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
dasigty said:
1) The accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden with far more evidence than against Kavanaugh

2) The opposing views on covid, only Doctors and Scientists who follow the narrative.

3) Any serious look into Epstein's "Suicide".
1) Trump has full power of federal government available. Therefore he has had almost four years time to do something about it.
2) Like Nigerian doctor from Texas, Dr Immanuel?
3) Trump is on top of this one also.

Not-The-Messiah

3,610 posts

80 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
captain_cynic said:
Countdown said:
dasigty said:
1) The accusations of sexual misconduct by Biden with far more evidence than against Kavanaugh

2) The opposing views on covid, only Doctors and Scientists who follow the narrative.

3) Any serious look into Epstein's "Suicide".
1. They're not hiding those stories. They're simply not giving much time to them. Because they're bullst.
This

Reputable news agencies need to worry about their reputation. Printing easily disproved lies is not conducive to that.

There's no conspiracy to hide the truth... Just a bunch of conspiracy theorists trying to hide from the truth.
Someone should have told democrat news agencies this a few years ago.
The way they have behaved in the past few years as be shocking
Years of Russia and Trump
The Kavanaugh nonsense
The Covington students disgrace
Jussie Smollett joke
Mainly peaceful protest crap,
It goes on and on.

I don't have a problem with them obviously having a narrative and being biased. It's when they claim they are not and delusional or intentional dishonest people defend them.



Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Thursday 22 October 13:58

dasigty

Original Poster:

587 posts

80 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all

Just ONE example of current FAKE news.

The headline...Politico 10/19/20

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.


3/4 into the story... "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”.

thewarlock

3,234 posts

44 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
dasigty said:
Just ONE example of current FAKE news.

The headline...Politico 10/19/20

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.


3/4 into the story... "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”.
What part are you struggling with?

i4got

5,623 posts

77 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
thewarlock said:
dasigty said:
Just ONE example of current FAKE news.

The headline...Politico 10/19/20

Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.


3/4 into the story... "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”.
What part are you struggling with?
Not see any issue with those?

So

a) It is Russian disinfo say the intel officials.
b) well its not definitely but we are casting doubt on it being legit
c) actually scratch that we have no evidence that Russia was involved at all.


paulguitar

23,104 posts

112 months

Thursday 22nd October 2020
quotequote all
Not-The-Messiah said:
The way they have behaved in the past few years as be shocking
Years of Russia and Trump
Are you aware of/have you read The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report into Russia's interference in the 2016 election? It's over 1,000 pages, and I assume you have not read it, but it's pretty damning for team trump. So was the Mueller report, despite Barr's efforts to totally misrepresent it. Have you read that?