makeorbrake wrote: » When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff.
SpaceSasqwatch wrote: » how old are you ?
makeorbrake wrote: » When all else fails, denigrate the poster rather than articulate your point. That said, I can understand how you'd chose to go that way when your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
SpaceSasqwatch wrote: » I wasnt making a point. I asked a question.
makeorbrake wrote: » When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff. Lol. What's a 'paper of record'?I guess the video testimony of 3 people means all 3 people are lying? I'm sure they can state that under oath - getting the opportunity to do so is another days work.
makeorbrake wrote: » Proof please.
makeorbrake wrote: » Unless part of the exercise was intimidatory.
makeorbrake wrote: » There wouldn't be any need to send a gaggle of gardai down from Harcourt Street either - would there?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I could get video testimonials from 3 people claiming big foot lives in their basement, would that make it true?
makeorbrake wrote: » Sure - and so 3 peoples word is worthless. How many people's word would it take to be acceptable? By the way, our legal system (in principal) isn't based on the 'wrong type of witnesses' as many of professed here.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » I already outlined it.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » You couldn't even fit 20 Gardaí in riot gear in a hallway, never mind have them all charge in.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » I'm not sure what you think it is that makes Doocey such a special snowflake that there would be a completely unprecedented and unorthodox search by upwards of two dozen Gardaí.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Isn't it amazing how nobody else saw this massive operation taking place.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » That depends on what they are looking for. The special detective unit is based out of there and Doocey, sorry I mean Dooceys computer, was sending threats to judges and politicians. They would be the ones to investigate such things.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » In this day and age I would expect pictures/video of said big foot.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » In many cases it is. Juries make decisions based on their view of witness testimony which is heavily influenced by their assessment of the witness.
makeorbrake wrote: » Yes. Well I think someone should get in touch with the Academy Awards people - because 83 year old Dermot Doocey and fifty something year old Ann Edwards put in Oscar performances if you maintain that they are lying in unison - alongside Mr. J. Doocey.
makeorbrake wrote: » When something from any of those videos supports the world view of you (or your ilk), then it's quoted. When it doesn't, then it's crazy stuff. Lol. What's a 'paper of record'? I guess the video testimony of 3 people means all 3 people are lying? I'm sure they can state that under oath - getting the opportunity to do so is another days work.
SpaceSasqwatch wrote: » Wha????http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/3d-wat-gif.jpg
SpaceSasqwatch wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
makeorbrake wrote: » Yes, this sums up the value of your contribution to the discussion alright. I see. So you include the Indo/SIndo in that definition? The Daily Mail?LINK - 16:59 onwards. Question addressed to Frank McBrearty: What are your thoughts on the irish media?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » sorry i dont waste my time watching videos from cranks
makeorbrake wrote: » Ok, so nobody from Dublin was present? You know this for a fact? Again - proof?
Little CuChulainn wrote: » This is the opposite of what I said. This is why it's pointless discussing something with you. I specifically said that the SDU is based in Dublin and they investigate the crimes committed by Dooceys computer.
makeorbrake wrote: » How many times have people of your viewpoint declared on this thread that any I.I. videos are nonsense? And now you say that there's a case for video. Which is it?
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » There's a big distinction between a video of 20 armed police in riot gear entering someones house, and a video of some people claiming that 20 armed police in riot gear etc.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » Can you see how the latter might be considered dubious whilst the former would be convincing evidence?
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » There's a big distinction between a video of 20 armed police in riot gear entering someones house, and a video of some people claiming that 20 armed police in riot gear etc. Can you see how the latter might be considered dubious whilst the former would be convincing evidence?
ArmaniJeanss wrote: On a general point is there any chance you could bring this interesting thread to Stephens attention.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: You have said you are not a member of II and I have no reason to doubt your integrity, however
relax carry on wrote: » Also on a general note, does the number of posters expressing disbelief at the claims by Integrity Ireland/Stephen Manning/Joe Doocey give you pause for thought at all?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Video of someone sitting there claiming a raid took place is not evidence, pics/video of the alleged raid taking place is considered evidence.
makeorbrake wrote: » Like I said, 'raids' are not designed to give the 'mark' opportunity for much - let alone A/V recording. Otherwise, you are discounting the testimony of 3 individuals. Effectively, you claim that all 3 individuals are lying. If they ever manage to get the opportunity, they will attest to that under oath but in your book, that's not evidence. :rolleyes:
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Are you saying that the Gardai where in and out in 10 seconds and no one had a chance to pick up a phone and take a picture?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » No passing motorists who took a SINGLE picture of this fleet of garda vehicles?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Do they live in a forest with no neighbour for 20 miles who would have been out and curious and taking pics/video of this massive force?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » But you expect me to believe the "testimony" of 3 people who have more to gain by making these claims.
makeorbrake wrote: » You expect his 83 year old father to do that, do you? Or his fifty something year old partner? What great presence of mind you have that you'd think of these things when a group of Gardai trundle through your home. Ah yes, these would be the passing motorists on a rural cul-de-sac!? From what I understand (and I'm open to correction), they live in a rural area. What is on record is that they live in a rural cul-de-sac. Sure - his 83 year old father has a lot to gain and his fifty something year old partner.:rolleyes: You watch this and tell me that they're all lying. Like I said, please do contact the Academy Awards people - as what you're suggesting is that they are putting in Oscar-level performances.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » You keep throwing their ages out there as iglf it makes a difference, as I said three.people who have a vested interest in telling the same story is not evidence.
