• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Mockery is inappropriate. Every time we ask you to demonstrate some knowledge of the problem, you simply wave it off and refer to another person. You have no inherent knowledge -- that much is clear. So all you demonstrate is your willingness to be led around by the nose by these people.

Now I repeat my challenge: You -- Robert Prey -- show me the layers.
Click to expand...


picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6605[/qimg]
Click to expand...

An anonymous drawing of objects depicted as layers is not showing me the layers, Robert. Expressing your chronic error in pictorial form is no better than expressing it verbally.

I've spoon-fed you the PDF. Show me the layers in it, as opposed to merely the objects. I've asked you to produce a PDF that has layers, not just objects.

Now stop fooling around and do what I ask.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, well it's such a bad fake, some people think it is intentional.
Click to expand...

The whole point of a cover up is to not get caught. So what's the point of a fake that's intentionally so bad that you can't help but notice it's a fake?
 
Mudcat said:
The whole point of a cover up is to not get caught. So what's the point of a fake that's intentionally so bad that you can't help but notice it's a fake?
Click to expand...

In conspiracy theories this is the standard backpedal when someone's "glaring evidence of anomalies" is challenged on the grounds that it would have been glaringly obvious to the perpetrator too. (Of course the real problem is the glaring inadequacy of the conspiracy theorist's expectations.)

The conspiracist's payoff initially is in how clever he can claim to be in discovering evidence of institutional fraud. "Ermagerd!! Layrrrrs!" They want you to think that the average joe would never have found those "problems" in the evidence, and that the world should be ever so thankful to them for having burned through all the protective obfuscation to "tell the truth."

But as the conspiracist's expectations begin to flounder under more enlightened scrutiny ("You mean a scanned PDF can have more than one object in it? Oops..."), a different payoff has to be devised, and a different conspiratorial scenario has to be formulated. Generally it's the Whistle-Blower scenario. In this scenario, some mythical figure "on the inside" has to be so disgusted with what's being proposed that he devises a sneaky way to make his part in the fraud seem okay at first glance, but signal cleverly to the outside world that something is amiss. The conspiracy theorists are somehow the only ones to pick up on this.

We'll have to wait and see whether Robert proposes something like this.
 
Guys, you're getting off topic. Where's the beef?

Robert Prey said:
Quite the contrary, it is Jay who admitted he has zero "experts" he could cite for his claims, except of course, for himself. But I don't drink Jay's Kool Aid.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what flavor it is. You don't even know that it's Kool-Aid. You just some red liquid in a cooler and thought it looked dangerous.

Abaddon has been discussing the matter with Jay, and you haven't engaged him in any detail, either. So, there are at least two people who seem to know what they're on about, based on my knowledge of Adobe products and computer science. You have demonstrably less knowledge than I do, yet you insist that they are incorrect.

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for response to modded post.
Jay said:
Now deal with the arguments I actually make, not the ones you desperately wish I had made.

Yet for some reason you can't address a single point I make, although others seem to have no problem.​
Click to expand...

​
Mudcat said:
The whole point of a cover up is to not get caught. So what's the point of a fake that's intentionally so bad that you can't help but notice it's a fake?
Click to expand...

It's a Kansas City Shuffle. While everyone - cough - is distracted, they can carry out HAARP testing.

JayUtah said:
In conspiracy theories this is the standard backpedal when someone's "glaring evidence of anomalies" is challenged on the grounds that it would have been glaringly obvious to the perpetrator too. (Of course the real problem is the glaring inadequacy of the conspiracy theorist's expectations.)

The conspiracist's payoff initially is in how clever he can claim to be in discovering evidence of institutional fraud. "Ermagerd!! Layrrrrs!" They want you to think that the average joe would never have found those "problems" in the evidence, and that the world should be ever so thankful to them for having burned through all the protective obfuscation to "tell the truth."....
Click to expand...
And by contrast, they say something is "obvious", but when asked why they're a minority, they say everyone else actually knows, but they're too scared to say. Or they just ignore the question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, well it's such a bad fake, some people think it is intentional.
Click to expand...

I am addicted to you.

I thought about dropping out of the thread because it was stuck in one place as it formed a downward spiral going in circles. But you just added a new layer of wackiness to the discussion. Thank you, RP.

" their work was as it were a wheel within a wheel." Eziekiel 1:16
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom