Jim Corr, New World Order Plant?

Mahatma coat

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is so much wrong with this post, factually, logically... and it is very late. So I'm just going to state that I object to everything on it, and leave it there.

I presume that you are going to tell us what you find wrong with the post in detail.

Especially since you dodged:

People in glass houses should follow up on the Questions others ask them if they want to play that game

Proof is the exclusive domain of mathematics. Do you understand what is meant by that?

We had this discussion previously, I believe bonkey gave a very clear answer as to what constitutes proof and the use of the word in the context of the CT Forum, but hey Veiled insults make you feel far more Superior Eh.

Mahatma coat

Not to insult anyone, but a university degree in maths, science or engineering would have CTers debunk a lot of their rubbish theories themselves. And dont give me this crap that uni only teaches the 'official' line....my lecturers werent bloody nazi NWO psychos.

See this presumes that none of the Pro CT Posters have Degrees.

I have one

I know a few of the regulars here have degrees

and Still we dont agree with you, We have the intelectual capacity to examine the same information, yet we see things differently to you.

Universitys Only teach the Official line, that is the truth of the situation, I remember askin some Questions about Cold fusion in my Physics Lectures only to be vocaly shot down and derided by the lecturer wh Stated that the evidence was conclusive that it Couldnt work. Then the Internet connected me to researchers at reputable institutions all over the world showing the technology actually working

Mahatma coat

LeBash wrote: »

This many people didnt listen to Jim Corr when he was the amazing 3 chord trick axeman at the head of the mighty force to be reckoned with that was the CORRS.

Hes has far more time than friends and he has realised that when talking CT, bobbleheads actually listen (and only 10% listen for the craic).

Bobbleheads????????

oceanclub

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Thats funny. I learned mathematics in school and college, and now know how the pyramids were built because of it.

I recall getting thrown out of religion class several times for arguing with my teacher. No, silly me, I swallowed all the lies from the new world order.

Pixel8; occasionally, what you learn in school is actually true, and the fact you find it hard to understand isn't because it's wrong.

P.

Stainless_Steel

Mahatma coat wrote: »

See this presumes that none of the Pro CT Posters have Degrees.

I have one

I know a few of the regulars here have degrees

and Still we dont agree with you, We have the intelectual capacity to examine the same information, yet we see things differently to you.

Universitys Only teach the Official line, that is the truth of the situation, I remember askin some Questions about Cold fusion in my Physics Lectures only to be vocaly shot down and derided by the lecturer wh Stated that the evidence was conclusive that it Couldnt work. Then the Internet connected me to researchers at reputable institutions all over the world showing the technology actually working

Your reasoning baffles me. You are implying that because your lecturer probably didn't want to go off topic in class or just wasn't an expert, that he is hiding something from you?! Is he plotting against man kind? Please tell me you accept that it is at least a possibiliy that you're lecturer isint a NWO psycho.

I did say don't give me the crap about uni teaching the official line. They teach the correct, proven line. Please understand that for their to be a conspiracy in this area that it would take mass deception from ordinary people.

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I presume that you are going to tell us what you find wrong with the post in detail.

No, it's too long, and the absurdity is too interwoven. It would take hours.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

People in glass houses should follow up on the Questions others ask them if they want to play that game

Why do you capitalise random words, like "Questions"?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We had this discussion previously, I believe bonkey gave a very clear answer as to what constitutes proof and the use of the word in the context of the CT Forum, but hey Veiled insults make you feel far more Superior Eh.

What veiled insults? Any examples?

I just read the charter, and saw nothing of you contextual proof claim. What I found was this, and I suggest you give it some thought:

There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it.

For example, if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim.

Pixel8:

FACT CLAIM: I mean i know you believe that coz thats what you said but there's really no proof that humans did build the pyramids...

FACT CLAIM: we know they're out there, there's proof of that

mysterious:

FACT CLAIM: Science doesn't know, only a handful of people know. Science is dis info as far as I'm concerned. If scientist's actually knew the truth, they wouldn't tell humanity. Most scientists work in black ops and secret services. The mainstream science is just a disney set. Science is the most over rated junk ever given to humanity. It's keep us imprizoned into a physical perceptual view of existence, and there is just so much more beyond the physical perceptual realm of reality. The illuminati know's this. Thats why we have science and education to keep us dumbed down. Ironic eh.

There are cities under the Giza plateu, and the tunnels and shafts go far deeper than they do in that pic.

Conversely, if you state that you personally tend to favour one interpretation over another, it would be unreasonable for someone to ask you to prove your stance to be correct.

I agree.

Please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

I don't agree, but it's your forum. Let's play by the rules.

oceanclub

Mahatma, weren't you about to prove Erich Von Daniken correct before you had to go to bed?

Hopefully your proof is a bit more concrete than the one you're using to "prove" that Singapore is more of a democracy than Australia and New Zealand (that you managed to buy hash in a bar there once).

P.

Mahatma coat

I can neither 'Prove' to you that Von Dainikan is right or wrong any more than I can 'Prove' that Jarrad Diamond is right or wrong in his book.

All I'm sayin is that Your Absolute truth is no more right than Mine or his, every theory should be judged on its own merits, there are odd Indiginous paintins of People in 'Space Suite' on rocks here in Australia, and they're a Lot older than European settlement, that much is Fact

oceanclub

Have you ever noticed that arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like trying to nail a jelly to a wall? Just as you try to concentrate on a particular thing - in this case, I asked for prove of a _single_ theory of Von Danikens - the conversation is deliberately sidetracked into spacesuits in fecking Australia. I wonder is there a link between CT and ADD?

P.

Flamed Diving

No, MC. All hypotheses are of equal merit, but evidence fetters out the rubbish and makes theories out of those well accounted for. You seem to think that the scientific meaning of theory is just to guess at things. If so, you are hopelessly mistaken. That video I presented would actually teach you a lot. In addition, your seeming "lack of knowledge" (i cant even use the correct use of the word ignorance for fear of infraction, ffs) on how the scientific method works makes me doubt your claims to have a physics degree.

Mahatma coat

this isnt the called he Conspiracy Hypothesis Forum, so Theory i the word I'll use, Like LIZZZZZZZZARDS is a word I'll use to describe a far deeper concept which we're hammerin out here, this is not a Science forum its a conspiracy theory forum, although the subjects are not mutually exclusive;)

Flamed Diving

Yeah, but I said "scientific meaning". In it's common use, theory just means guess.

Stainless_Steel

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this isnt the called he Conspiracy Hypothesis Forum, so Theory i the word I'll use, Like LIZZZZZZZZARDS is a word I'll use to describe a far deeper concept which we're hammerin out here, this is not a Science forum its a conspiracy theory forum, although the subjects are not mutually exclusive;)

If it's not a science forum then CTers should really stop claiming all scientists haven't a clue about things they spend their lives researching.

oceanclub

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

If it's not a science forum then CTers should really stop claiming all scientists haven't a clue about things they spend their lives researching.

We'd already seen one post claim that all scientists are either in black ops or the secret service. I mean, anyone who's gone to university and had friends who studied science and then went onto jobs in the sector knows how absolutely patently stupid such a claim is. It's absolutely impossible to argue with this kind of lunacy and I find it more worrying than religious fundamentalism.

P.

Mahatma coat

how about replacin the word ALL with SOME and then maybe we can have a rational debate

oceanclub

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how about replacin the word ALL with SOME and then maybe we can have a rational debate

Actually, you originally said "most". So, let's talk rationally, shall we?

What proportion - to the nearest 10% - of the 40,000 people per year who graduate from a science course in Irish universities (http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/Science_and_Maths_Education_in_Ireland.pdf) are working in black ops and the secret service?

You said "most", so I assume you think that at the very least, 20,001 Irish people go to work for black ops or the Irish secret service every year?

P.

Flamed Diving

oceanclub wrote: »

We'd already seen one post claim that all scientists are either in black ops or the secret service. I mean, anyone who's gone to university and had friends who studied science and then went onto jobs in the sector knows how absolutely patently stupid such a claim is. It's absolutely impossible to argue with this kind of lunacy and I find it more worrying than religious fundamentalism.

P.

At least you know where you stand with the religious, it's all written in one book!

Torakx

Flamed Diving wrote: »

At least you know where you stand with the religious, it's all written in one book!

Lol i dissagree! all the books are different and interpreted different.Its even worse than the CT world and the mind control is way more subtle for most people to see it.

TalkieWalkie

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Regarding Jim Corr - he seems to believe every CT as fact - therefore I dont bother wasting my time listening to him anymore.

I think it's a little presumptuous to of you to make this statement, how on earth would you know what CT's he believes or doesn't ?

That said, I would imagine that most people who are aware of the 911 and NWO conspiracies, believe in them to some degree.

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I think it's a little presumptuous to of you to make this statement...

I would imagine that most people who are aware of the 911 and NWO conspiracies, believe in them to some degree.

:pac:

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That said, I would imagine that most people who are aware of the 911 and NWO conspiracies, believe in them to some degree.

Ok, I have to ask. Why would you think that?

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

Ok, I have to ask. Why would you think that?

It's just my opinion. I personally have never met anyone who has researched or watched the available video's of the mentioned conspiracies and said it's all completely tripe.

Keep in mind, I did say "most"..(majority) and "to some degree".

Stainless_Steel

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I think it's a little presumptuous to of you to make this statement, how on earth would you know what CT's he believes or doesn't?

Eh dude....he has a site full of the crap, and he even goes on tv sayig what he believes is the truth.

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's just my opinion. I personally have never met anyone who has researched or watched the available video's of the mentioned conspiracies and said it's all completely tripe.

Keep in mind, I did say "most"..(majority) and "to some degree".

I'm one of them. I have watched:

- All editions of Loose Change, except the newest rehash
- Both of the Zeitgeist videos
- The Obama Deception

Bull****, but entertaining bull****, I will give them that.

TalkieWalkie

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Eh dude....he has a site full of the crap, and he even goes on tv sayig what he believes is the truth.

And you go on boards saying what he says is crap and what you believe is true. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm one of them. I have watched:

- All editions of Loose Change, except the newest rehash
- Both of the Zeitgeist videos
- The Obama Deception

Bull****, but entertaining bull****, I will give them that.

I respect your opinion and I agree, lots of bull**** in those movies, but there is a degree of truth and they raise a lot of unanswered questions. There are many other movies more damning evidence. 100's in fact.

studiorat

True enough they raised some unanswered questions. But, there's no shortage of loons prepared to fill in those gaps with makey-uppy CT's and publish that as fact.

Stainless_Steel

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And you go on boards saying what he says is crap and what you believe is true. :rolleyes.

Good one. My initial point was that I have no time for Corr because he takes all the usual CTs as fact. Then I said I know this from looking at his site and seeing him on tv. And you just go on a tangent that I come on boards?!

TalkieWalkie

EDIT - quote studiorat
That's true also, LOTS of LOONS, but also many credible sources, respected people and celebs risking their reputations and putting their necks on the chopping block. It is kinda crazy to believe that Osama planned the whole 911 gig. And if he did, they seem to have forgiven him and given up the search .

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I respect your opinion and I agree, lots of bull**** in those movies, but there is a degree of truth and they raise a lot of unanswered questions. There are many other movies more damning evidence. 100's in fact.

Maybe there is some truth in it, but when they layer the Truth Cake in steaming hot layers of bull****, it kind of gets lost in all the... smell.

I have glimpsed at some other videos, but it is always the same. They just take some clips of Obama/Bernanke/etc speaking and them edit them so as to make them look like they are lying, or evading questions or whatever.

As far as I see it, the only liars and the only conspirators are the ones who produced the video.

A nice, clean irony bun.

Torakx

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm one of them. I have watched:

- All editions of Loose Change, except the newest rehash
- Both of the Zeitgeist videos
- The Obama Deception

Bull****, but entertaining bull****, I will give them that.

I hope thats not the only CT stuff you watch as they are the mainstream junk with some truth and some unconfirmed.
Good for initiation to the Ct world but i would rather people watch the secret of OZ.Since i watched that i felt they had a much better idea of the monetary system than zeitgeist tries to put out.
Havent watched loose change it looks kinda cheese to me.Is it any good factually?