CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[Myriad]

Yeah, occasionally Truthers deviate from their usual program of "you should believe us when we make **** up" and "if you were true skeptics, you would believe us when we make **** up," and take a shot at "you have a legal obligation to believe us when we make **** up." CE's masterpiece of unintentional irony in #695 is a solid example. At least this time the "punishment" is mild; other Truthers over the years have argued in earnest for shooting and hanging.

But this does point to one of the key flaws in PaloAlto's elaborate extrapolations: the assumption that every time someone is told something, it means they automatically know that that thing is true. "A told B about C, so B knew about C when he did D at later time E."

To really show that "B knew about C," one must look further than "A told B about C." For example:

- Did B believe A when A told B about C?
- How good was the evidence that A presented to B about C?
- At the time, did B have information from other sources that contradicted C?
- Did C seem important enough to B (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) to remember it later?
- Was C a distinctive unique piece of information (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) or one of many similar pieces of information of unpredictably varying accuracy and importance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Justin39640]

The Defendants: The residents of the JREF 9/11 CT Subforum
The Charge: pseudo-skepticism of the most transparent and absurd kind
A short description of the circumstances of the crime: For many months now, the defendants ignored and danced around well documented facts about the lead-up to 9/11. Despite being spoon-fed this information over and over again, they pretend it doesn't exist and is based on delusional opinions of some undesirable "twoofers". The defendants didn't even try to engage in "debunking", instead resorted to continuous back-padding and desperate reassurements of alleged rationality.
Evidence: This thread
Ruling: Guilty as charged
Punishment: Ridicule

We're talking about treason of the highest order here. Who made the conscious decision to let Al Qeada murder 3000 of my countrymen? Several of whom were literally my neighbors. Who do I want to see get the chair????

Your post is a joke (not the funny kind) and sadly hypocritical.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah, occasionally Truthers deviate from their usual program of "you should believe us when we make **** up" and "if you were true skeptics, you would believe us when we make **** up," and take a shot at "you have a legal obligation to believe us when we make **** up." CE's masterpiece of unintentional irony in #695 is a solid example. At least this time the "punishment" is mild; other Truthers over the years have argued in earnest for shooting and hanging.

But this does point to one of the key flaws in PaloAlto's elaborate extrapolations: the assumption that every time someone is told something, it means they automatically know that that thing is true. "A told B about C, so B knew about C when he did D at later time E."

To really show that "B knew about C," one must look further than "A told B about C." For example:

- Did B believe A when A told B about C?
- How good was the evidence that A presented to B about C?
- At the time, did B have information from other sources that contradicted C?
- Did C seem important enough to B (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) to remember it later?
- Was C a distinctive unique piece of information (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) or one of many similar pieces of information of unpredictably varying accuracy and importance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

A masterpiece of pantomime debunking. Congratulations. You can pick up Brainster's aborted-after-the-first-shot-in-the-dark quest for "debunking" if you want substantial replies.

 

[Childlike Empress]

We're talking about treason of the highest order here. Who made the conscious decision to let Al Qeada murder 3000 of my countrymen? Several of whom were literally my neighbors. Who do I want to see get the chair????

We don't know who made the conscious decision but we know who executed the results of that decision. We could waterboard them until the cows come home, but it already seems to be safe to argue that Tenet, Black and Blee were involved in at least the execution, and it looks from other evidence that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other were involved, too. I wouldn't let Dubya in on a conspiracy to steal left socks, so I wouldn't mention him. Haha.

You ignoring the evidence for a conspiracy to prevent those terrorists from getting caught, and "us" not knowing where the orders came from, changes nothing about the facts.

 

[000063]

...Funny how you never provide actual evidence to support your claims and bold assertions of fact. Why is that?

Don't need to. Truthiness.

 

[000063]

...

But this does point to one of the key flaws in PaloAlto's elaborate extrapolations: the assumption that every time someone is told something, it means they automatically know that that thing is true. "A told B about C, so B knew about C when he did D at later time E."
...

I had a...vehement discussion with my family last week, during the course of which I pointed out that each of us clearly remembered things we said to each other that the others didn't. And that's just one family, not national security professionals who deal with shedloads of little details every day.

 

[Myriad]

A masterpiece of pantomime debunking. Congratulations. You can pick up Brainster's aborted-after-the-first-shot-in-the-dark quest for "debunking" if you want substantial replies.

Whatever. If you don't care why paloalto's and your claims and accusations are completely unconvincing, then there's no need to pay any mind to what I said. Just keep on hoping that someone somewhere will be deceived into outrage.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

I had a...vehement discussion with my family last week, during the course of which I pointed out that each of us clearly remembered things we said to each other that the others didn't. And that's just one family, not national security professionals who deal with shedloads of little details every day.

Yeah, my post and paloalto's claims reminded me of that kind of discussion too. "You knew the Hendersons were coming over for dinner tonight and you deliberately chose to disregard it. I told you last Sunday, when I distinctly said, 'do you think our dining room table is big enough to have the Hendersons over?' I very clearly remember saying it, because it was at the exact time the home team had that interception run seventy yards back for a touchdown in that silly game you were watching."

 

[tsig]

Yeah, occasionally Truthers deviate from their usual program of "you should believe us when we make **** up" and "if you were true skeptics, you would believe us when we make **** up," and take a shot at "you have a legal obligation to believe us when we make **** up." CE's masterpiece of unintentional irony in #695 is a solid example. At least this time the "punishment" is mild; other Truthers over the years have argued in earnest for shooting and hanging.

But this does point to one of the key flaws in PaloAlto's elaborate extrapolations: the assumption that every time someone is told something, it means they automatically know that that thing is true. "A told B about C, so B knew about C when he did D at later time E."

To really show that "B knew about C," one must look further than "A told B about C." For example:

- Did B believe A when A told B about C?
- How good was the evidence that A presented to B about C?
- At the time, did B have information from other sources that contradicted C?
- Did C seem important enough to B (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) to remember it later?
- Was C a distinctive unique piece of information (not in hindsight, but at the time A told B) or one of many similar pieces of information of unpredictably varying accuracy and importance?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Sounds like A, B and C are having a menage a trois.

 

[Justin39640]

We don't know who made the conscious decision...

That's what I thought. Everyone else could have been unknowing patsies since you clearly just stated that they did not make the conscious decision.

Until you prove who and why did make that decision, all you have is F.U.B.A.R.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That's what I thought. Everyone else could have been unknowing patsies since you clearly just stated that they did not make the conscious decision.

Until you prove who and why did make that decision, all you have is F.U.B.A.R.

Total nonsense. How should I or anybody else researching this on their own have access to that information? Your incredulity does not make the facts go away. These people acted on someone's conscious decisions and the orders following it.

 

[dafydd]

Total nonsense. How should I or anybody else researching this on their own have access to that information? Your incredulity does not make the facts go away. These people acted on someone's conscious decisions and the orders following it.

Ahem.

 

[Justin39640]

Ahem.

lol
Isn't it amazing how they always answer their own questions?

 

[Robrob]

Total nonsense. How should I or anybody else researching this on their own have access to that information? Your incredulity does not make the facts go away. These people acted on someone's conscious decisions and the orders following it.

You don't know but you know?

Stundie!

 

[Childlike Empress]

 

[dafydd]

lol
Isn't it amazing how they always answer their own questions?

Self-debunking during the process. Truthers, it's almost a shame that they are nearly extinct.

 

[dafydd]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d54b459448e8.gif[/qimg]

Indeed.

 

[000063]

Empress, you are responding to a request for proof by saying no one in the public could have X information. Yet you repeat a qualitative claim concerning that same information that you claim not to have and to have no way to get.

The funny thing is, people keep pointing out PA has no evidence of actual malice, and you keep sneering at them, yet you've just admitted that not only does no one in the public have that evidence, that it's entirely inaccessible. You can't even prove a conscious decision was ever made, by your own admission.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm saying that while Y information is known and feveriously denied by duhbunkies, X information is not. While i'm doing that, i'm mocking the incredible lack of critical thinking and actual "debunking", and having a lot of fun doing so. It can't get any lower and obvious in regards to intellectual honesty than what we are witnessing here.

 

[Robrob]

I'm saying that while Y information is known and feveriously denied by duhbunkies

You do realize when a claim is debunked it is not "known."

While i'm doing that, i'm mocking the incredible lack of critical thinking and actual "debunking", and having a lot of fun doing so.

But strangely having no luck at all providing actual evidence to support your claims.

It can't get any lower and obvious in regards to intellectual honesty than what we are witnessing here.

Easy solution would be to begin providing actual facts and evidence in support of your theories.