A few questions for TruthSeeker1234

smother

Student
S
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
44
Even though you are dodging a lot of questions and in general are breaking all the rules of debating, I think your presence at this forum is good. I think it proves that JREF members are actually seeking the truth. We do like people to question our beliefs because that ensures that we are never satisfied before we can account for every detail of the official story.

TruthSeeker, if you were questioning Loose Change at the Loose Change forum the same way you are questioning the official version here at JREF, I think it is fair to assume that your a@@ was banned after no more than 5 posts. The assumption is based on the fact that the LC mods have to take turns banning "shills, trolls and skeptics" in order for them to handle the workload.

I know that you'll probably claim that JREF members are impossible to sway, that we are brainwashed by the governement. But doesn't the fact that you're actually allowed to express your opinion freely impress you?

Do you agree with the banning policy at LC forum where every person expressing skeptism towards LC is banned after a short while?
 
Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.

Yes, I appreciate the free flow of dialog here. However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference. There are also forums which censor out the alternative views, allowing only the government view. A supreme example would be Wikipedia. Check out the various 9/11 articles there. Perfectly cleansed.

I have long been a fan of the amazing Randi, I would like it better if the tone here was all science and no name calling.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Everyone is dodging my questions too!
Click to expand...

Are you blind? Just because you glance over the reply, or ignore the thread , it doesn't mean that anyone is dodging your questions. Every question you've asked have been answered (probaly over a hundred times by now), so if they dont reply to you , that means your answer can be found with a simple search of the forum.

You being lazy doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to be a good forum member.

Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.
Click to expand...

Why? only them?

Yes, I appreciate the free flow of dialog here. However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference
Click to expand...

The only rewarding thing from the LC forums is a drop in your IQ points, if you are looking to do that to qualify for some mental health program that gives out discounts to those incapable of thinking for themselves.

There are also forums which censor out the alternative views, allowing only the government view. A supreme example would be Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is a user supported information archive. There is no supression invovled which is why wikipedia articles should be used with a grain of salt.

Check out the various 9/11 articles there. Perfectly cleansed.
Click to expand...
what i see on 9/11 articles there are the removal of quack,crackpot theories not supported by physical evidence.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.

Yes, I appreciate the free flow of dialog here. However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference. There are also forums which censor out the alternative views, allowing only the government view. A supreme example would be Wikipedia. Check out the various 9/11 articles there. Perfectly cleansed.

I have long been a fan of the amazing Randi, I would like it better if the tone here was all science and no name calling.
Click to expand...

What questions were dodged?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.
Click to expand...
This could probably be arranged, we tried it before w/ DJLegacy, who promptly ran away when Gravy actually showed up. He's forever known as DJRunaway now.
 
I think Troof is starting to derail in the same way Chris did. Now the MIB are controlling Wikipedia? Guess all members there are payed by the government.
 
However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference.
Click to expand...

I quick comment.

A while back, on the LC Forums (before the JDX reign-of-terror began), a new thread was started there by none other than Dylan himself. He claimed to have proof that the black boxes existed, and even cited it in the title of the thread - "Black boxes found".

It seems that Dylan had taken a field trip to the 9/11 exhibit at the Smithsonian. He noticed a photo of two black boxes within the display and immediately claimed that these were the missing black boxes. He didn't ask any questions. He didn't do any further research. He jumped to a conclusion and immediately posted his find on the LC forums.

This was met with enthusiasim from the Loosers. They ate it up. Many commented on the 'great find' by Dylan. Of course, there were still a few JREF members lurking and they were quick to ask questions. Dylan shrugged them off, saying he'd do more research. In the meantime, one of the JREFers contacted the museum and found out (within a day) the story behind the photos.

It turns out the photos aren't pictures of the actual black boxes at all. They are actually a part of the exhibit that focused on recovery.

In the end, Dylan admitted his error. But a simple phone-call or e-mail could have saved him the embaressment of claiming to have found the black boxes. (In a bit of revisionism that isn't uncommon on the LC boards, the thread was renamed to "Black boxes NOT found").

So what would have happened without this "interference" from opposing viewpoints? Would Dylan or any other Loosers made any attempt at finding the real story? Or would they simply have continued to claim victory while somehow building the Smithsonian in to their conspircacy web? (I think we all know the answer)

The interference you speak of is healthy. And considering the 'research' done by the loosers, it's necessary. It's a shame that an opposing view point is no longer allowed at the LC forums... who's going to point out their errors for them?

(I can't seem to locate the thread in the LC forums, but I will supply a link if I can find it.)
 
T'ai Chi said:
It would certainly do more to help 'set the tone' for organized skepticism in the future.
Click to expand...

I find this amusing given that it comes from a person who has all of two posts in the CT subforu, including the one above.

Perhaps, had you actually paid attention, T'ai Chi, you might have noticed that Troother hasn't exactly been nice or reasonable.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference.
Click to expand...

But don't you agree that the best research is done when you know that when you present your research, your audience will "ask questions and demand answers"? It is apparant that a lot of outright lies and unsubstantiated claims just float around at the LC forums, uncontested.

Claims like "no debris at the Pentagon", "16 foot hole in the Pentatgon", "free fall of the towers" and many others have been repeated so many times that those claims have been accepted as facts. But you only have to look at a few photos to render those claims false. And when you contest those claims, you are banned within minutes. Crazy.

Does this kind of administration of a forum help your research? A good researcher always look at an issue from different angles - but at the LC forum only one angle is allowed. It's crazy and all you are doing is conforming all opinions and cherry picking the "facts". As a result none of your research can be used outside the LC forum.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
There are also forums which censor out the alternative views, allowing only the government view. A supreme example would be Wikipedia. Check out the various 9/11 articles there. Perfectly cleansed.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia? Forum? You must be kidding.

I have been a member of dozens of forums but none of those had that kind of biased administration. Not even close.
 
So what are we waiting for?

TS1234, start a thread! Begin with a little blurb stating this is for a one-on-one formal debate between you and person X, and that you would appreciate it if all other people refrained from posting. Then enter your first claim for discussion.

You can refer to this thread, so it's clear there is a consensus in the subforum that this should happen. That should give anyone weight to report any postings but anyone but you and the other debator (and possibly an arbitrator???).

I'm sure as soon as you commence, someone will start up a popcorn thread.

Let's go!

-Andrew
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.

Yes, I appreciate the free flow of dialog here. However, there is great value in the LC forum, where people such as Russel Pickering are doing nice collaborative studies, free of interference. There are also forums which censor out the alternative views, allowing only the government view. A supreme example would be Wikipedia. Check out the various 9/11 articles there. Perfectly cleansed.

I have long been a fan of the amazing Randi, I would like it better if the tone here was all science and no name calling.
Click to expand...

Well? :confused:
 
Bell said:
Well? :confused:
Click to expand...

Oh he's run off and started a naughty frat boy thread bragging about his scam at Wikipedia, now! The lad has too many irons in the fire because nothing he 'observes' has any truth to it and he can't hold the debates together.

He's an admitted liar, now. Credibility = zero. I will be very disappointed in Gravy or Mackey if they would agree to debate this cretin. (I think Mackey has already so much as dismissed his attempts at engagement as worthless exercises - but I don't want to pretend to speak for Mackey, so I acknowledge that I am paraphrasing several posts.)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Oh he's run off and started a naughty frat boy thread bragging about his scam at Wikipedia, now! The lad has too many irons in the fire because nothing he 'observes' has any truth to it and he can't hold the debates together.

He's an admitted liar, now. Credibility = zero. I will be very disappointed in Gravy or Mackey if they would agree to debate this cretin. (I think Mackey has already so much as dismissed his attempts at engagement as worthless exercises - but I don't want to pretend to speak for Mackey, so I acknowledge that I am paraphrasing several posts.)
Click to expand...

Yep, I doubt anyone would take this up anymore. But just to remind BS101 of his proposal. But he allready admitted himself that he is a liar.
 
Bell said:
Yep, I doubt anyone would take this up anymore. But just to remind BS101 of his proposal. But he allready admitted himself that he is a liar.
Click to expand...

I'm going to calm down in a bit, but right now this sophomoric crap has got me seeing red. The li'l puke is dancing with glee about destroying his own credibility, so I should be delighted, but you just want to smack that smug grin off his chops! :mad:
 
Vespaguy:

I remember lurking/looking at that thread. You are exactly correct in all you have said. It is a real shame, but when you are DA et al, and trying to make it big in hollywood, you can't afford differing opinions, or deccenting opinions. As a result, the Final Cut of his movie, even more so than the previous version, will be almost entirely contrived fiction.

SO be it...easier to destroy and laugh at.

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom