Did America Land On The Moon

[OzmO]

No - it means YOU used the word "most".

I would like you to quantify that.

OMG  I used the word "most"!  OMG  I qualified it by saying the main stream scientific community  OMG  they also believe in global warming so CHINA must have faked the space walk!!!!   OMG  240 only reads 50% of my posts and ignores the rest


OMG!

[OzmO]

I think many agencies are good at delivering good info, but they are also vulnerable to compromise due to agendas.

I wouldn't feel confident enough - as you do - to claim I can define who is credible and who is not.

So then all sources are not credible?

And which news story or news source did i cite as credible?

[OzmO]

I think many agencies are good at delivering good info, but they are also vulnerable to compromise due to agendas.

I wouldn't feel confident enough - as you do - to claim I can define who is credible and who is not.

Sounds like you think it depends on the news story............

[240 is Back]

So then all sources are not credible?

And which news story or news source did i cite as credible?

It's very hard to find a group you can call credible all of the time.

Alex Jones called the financial crash long before CNBC did.

Which is more credible?  

[OzmO]

It's very hard to find a group you can call credible all of the time.

Alex Jones called the financial crash long before CNBC did.

Which is more credible?  

Sounds like it depends on the story and the source......

[240 is Back]

Sounds like you think it depends on the news story............

No.

I think it depends on their motivation - at that time.

Right after 911, the BBC came out with a report that several of the 911 terrorists were alive and well, and reported their info stolen.  Suddenly the FBI changed their position from "We know these 19 pricks did it" to "we may never know their true identities.

Was the BBC credible on that article?  yes.



Now, ON 9/11, when their reporter reported WTC7 falling about an hour before it did - as it stood in the background - they were certainly not credible.  She said it had collapsed.  It was standing right behind her.  She was reading a script with some off timing that day.

Were they credible in that piece?  Certainly not.



Was alex jones credible on declaring the financial crisis was coming?  yes.
Was AJ credible in everyone getting mobbed up to camps 5 years ago?  No.

Do, for YOU to declare any group 0% credible is silly, bro.  that's the point I'm making.  You shit on AJ because he gets some wrong.  

[OzmO]

No.

I think it depends on their motivation - at that time.

Right after 911, the BBC came out with a report that several of the 911 terrorists were alive and well, and reported their info stolen.  Suddenly the FBI changed their position from "We know these 19 pricks did it" to "we may never know their true identities.

Was the BBC credible on that article?  yes.

How do you know the BBC article was credible?  Because the FBI identified some of them? 

That's how you conclude it's credible?

Now, ON 9/11, when their reporter reported WTC7 falling about an hour before it did - as it stood in the background - they were certainly not credible.  She said it had collapsed.  It was standing right behind her.  She was reading a script with some off timing that day.

Were they credible in that piece?  Certainly not.

How do you know that just wasn't an error?

People are perfect?  the news is always accurate?

Why would the government need to report the WTC had collapse if they were planning to?

If the building falls there will be no doubt it did.

Was alex jones credible on declaring the financial crisis was coming?  yes.
Was AJ credible in everyone getting mobbed up to camps 5 years ago?  No.

He's one man basing his prediction on information he deems credible.  His credibly to us is based on how many times he correct versus incorrect.  Each person has a different idea of what that ration should be.

Do, for YOU to declare any group 0% credible is silly, bro.  that's the point I'm making.  You shit on AJ because he gets some wrong. 

So this is really about PP  isn't it?

I didn't say a broken clock isn't right at anytime.

Feel free to try again.   

[OzmO]

How many stories is Alex jones wrong about something versus how many time is CNBC wrong?

BTW  I don't listen to or watch either.

[240 is Back]

How many stories is Alex jones wrong about something versus how many time is CNBC wrong?

BTW  I don't listen to or watch either.

again, can you quantify this?  What % each of them is right/wrong?

Also, if you read PP, you'd see the majority of stories are interviews or calling out people making statement.  AJ himself rants on the show, that's another thing.  but PP itself is pretty strong on accuracy.  A lot of the time, they have video of the event they're discussing. 

Then again, you admit you don't watch either PP or CNBC.  So how in the world can you tell us if they're accurate or not?

[OzmO]

again, can you quantify this?  What % each of them is right/wrong?

Also, if you read PP, you'd see the majority of stories are interviews or calling out people making statement.  AJ himself rants on the show, that's another thing.  but PP itself is pretty strong on accuracy.  A lot of the time, they have video of the event they're discussing. 

Then again, you admit you don't watch either PP or CNBC.  So how in the world can you tell us if they're accurate or not?

I've read PP before.  I did a lot when you and i first started debating 9/11.  And I've watched news and specials CNBC.   But i don't currently watch either.

So the answer goes back to what i originally said, and what you deny, but are really saying the same thing too: 

It's depends on the story.  The source and motivation, be it for business or what have you play a part in why the story is being reported. (go back to the questions about the earthquake that you ran from answering)  You and are pretty much saying the same thing. 

Is the hologram story on PP?

Your reasoning for the BBC story is more than flawed as well as the WTC7 story if you think the reporter reporting it before it happened is part of a conspiracy.  Because of this I believe your opinion far from objective when i comes to scrutinizing news stories. 

[Nordic Superman]

240, you're a mental midget with epic skills in derailing threads.

Oh and by the way, your logic in regards to credible sources is way off.

How do you determine the BBC is more credible than the FBI? The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities so I'm really looking forward to how you determine they're more credible.

[Hugo Chavez]

The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities

oh good god then, well by all means, off with their heads!

[Nordic Superman]

oh good god then, well by all means, off with their heads!

It's a rebuttal to 240's statement of the BBC being a credible source whilst using his own "logic".

[240 is Back]

How do you determine the BBC is more credible than the FBI?

Because of the BBc article, robert mueller at fbi admitted we may never know their true identities.

[Mons Venus]

NASA left behind a car dealership of Rovers on the Moon. One picture from our sophisticated satellites ends this conversation.

[Nordic Superman]

Because of the BBc article, robert mueller at fbi admitted we may never know their true identities.

Whatever...

You also questioned why the space buggy and flag weren't visible from Earth... do you now concede this point considering I gave you scientific evidenced based on physical laws detailing exactly why they are not visible?

[240 is Back]

Whatever...

the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.

But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story.  They got that one right.

[Nordic Superman]

the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.

But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story.  They got that one right.

Wait, did you just ignore my question of your earlier premise to dismiss men on the moon because "we can't see the flag" out of embarrassment?

[240 is Back]

Wait, did you just ignore my question of your earlier premise to dismiss men on the moon because "we can't see the flag" out of embarrassment?

no, it's because i wasted too much time yesterday arguing with strangers trying to own each other regarding something that happened before I was born.

what's the point?  the govt lies about a bunch of shit, and tells the truth about other shit.  we're arguing about which things they lied about. what's the point?  i'm watching espn and eating breakfast.  enjoy your win, just not worth the effort, ya know?

[OzmO]

the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.

But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story.  They got that one right.

So you are looking at statements made to the public during an on going investigation and that what determines for you the credibility of the BBC story?

You are truly an internet investigator  lol.


woooooooooooooooooooooww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww w    

[Fury]

The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities so I'm really looking forward to how you determine they're more credible.

Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.

[Soul Crusher]

Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.

My main reason for thinking that a hoax is not realistic is allthe people who would have cashed in by now with books, movies, etc..

[Nordic Superman]

no, it's because i wasted too much time yesterday arguing with strangers trying to own each other regarding something that happened before I was born.

what's the point?  the govt lies about a bunch of shit, and tells the truth about other shit.  we're arguing about which things they lied about. what's the point?  i'm watching espn and eating breakfast.  enjoy your win, just not worth the effort, ya know?

Wait, this is an online forum, how many man hours did YOU waste trying to convince strangers the planes that hit the twin towers were possibly holograms? I imagine considerably more time than it took me to refute nonsense with the laws of physics.

Oh you're watching ESPN whilst eating breakfast... what are you trying to say? That you don't take this seriously and being wrong means little to you? That'll explain the 23+ posts per day you make!

Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.

I'm starting to think the opposite. My prediction: do gooder far lefties will go so far that some smart albeit insane nut case who shares common opinions with the native masses (although extreme) will gain power. You might recall something similar happening in Nazi Germany.

[240 is Back]

Wait, this is an online forum, how many man hours did YOU waste trying to convince strangers the planes that hit the twin towers were possibly holograms?

the hologram conversation was about 2 hours out of the last 4 years.

really, ya dont need to make stuff up to be popular.

[Nordic Superman]

the hologram conversation was about 2 hours out of the last 4 years.

really, ya dont need to make stuff up to be popular.

Please tell me the lies? I didn't say how much time you devoted to convincing people it was an elaborate hologram.

I'm not the one making stuff up to be popular, you however are perpetrating lies and not taking on board FACTS based on tangible evidence...