Skeptic Project

"As far back as one month, the posts were no different than they appear now. This begs the question of why they would be doctored back between March and April, but the post by James Kush would only appear now."

I already told you he would of modified them right away. And they would not of appeared on the blog until he authorized them to do so.

Now, if you look at the page again, you will see he is listed as commenting the very next day. March 18, 2011 at 2:13 am.

Yet for some reason he did not feel the need to expose this big find until two months later? Why didn't he blog about it right away?

Then we look again at the total lack of motive. March was before the problems with TVP and TZM, my radio show was still featured on Peter's website. I had no reason to do any of that, so why would I?

And I already pointed out that he could of used the edit function to change them.

And since there is no evidence to verify this yet we are expected to believe you. You are basically asking us to trust a known liar [you Neil] on his word.

So why change them as soon as they were created? was he always planning this almost two months in advance? You would require evidence for that, and again the only hard evidence available does not support this theory- only assertion and hearsay. Furthermore, the original theory was that there were photoshops, which is not the case. There is no body of evidence to support this second theory.

"Again, Im not interested in bald assertions and motives as evidence- I'm interested in the hard facts, and as of now there is no evidence to suggest there was any doctoring done, and still a gap in the time line between the earliest cache of the website, in April, and now. Now you're creating this wall for the evidence such that even if it emerges it can't be trusted. But what is available does not support your allegations. That's the only thing I'm interested in."

Evidence that can easily be changed is not admissible for a reason. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

We have already established that he could of easily changed my posts with the edit feature. And as a result, the evidence is unreliable at best. The person presenting the evidence itself is known to engage in dishonest activities. And that's taken from the opinions of people here.

Establishing motive is also a critical part of this process, and you have not done so.

At the end of the day, I can easily prove that he could have, and had motive to do so.

You cannot prove that he didn't. So the best you have to go on is some evidence provided by an obviously hostile witness, that could easily be doctored. And no motive whatsoever for the crime in question.

James Kush if he did do as I suggested is not going to hand you the evidence that he did. And there is no way for you to verify that any information he does give you is genuine.

"It's all about the he said she said bull shit...."

"And since there is no evidence to verify this yet we are expected to believe you. You are basically asking us to trust a known liar [you Neil] on his word."

And you have yet to prove that I am a known liar at all.

Yet people here have already admitted that even they have seen that James Kush lies on his blog. :)

I have not done so because I'm not about to guess the motives of people I don't know. Your first theory of the photoshop was not true. Your second theory possesses no evidence, only an assertion. And it still doesn't fill the two month time gap. The posts were the same a month ago, this would have to require a pretty, far sighted plot that is weirdly specific.

Crazy isn't a diagnosis. Its an adjective.

@VTV

James Kush if he did do as I suggested is not going to hand you the evidence that he did. And there is no way for you to verify that any information he does give you is genuine.

VTV you are suggesting that you can read a persons mind and at that read a persons mind in a event that hasn't occurred yet. I'd like to see your credentials in mind reading into the future before we precede any further down this path. If not, I'm sure you can understand how people cannot simply take your word for it.

What makes you think the evidence he provides is going to not be genuine besides the fact that you would indicate you can read peoples minds even into the future. Nanos has already pulled that one on CS and I will not be fooled again!

I think this is Neil:

Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a pervasive pattern of unstable, "overtly narcissistic behaviors [that] derive from an underlying sense of insecurity and weakness rather than from genuine feelings of self-confidence and high self-esteem" (Millon), beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by ten (or more) of the following:
seeks to create an illusion of superiority and to build up an image of high self-worth (Millon);
has disturbances in the capacity for empathy (Forman);
strives for recognition and prestige to compensate for the lack of a feeling of self-worth;
may acquire a deprecatory attitude in which the achievements of others are ridiculed and degraded (Millon);
has persistent aspirations for glory and status (Millon);
has a tendency to exaggerate and boast (Millon);
is sensitive to how others react to him or her, watches and listens carefully for critical judgment, and feels slighted by disapproval (Millon);
is prone to feel shamed and humiliated and especially hyper-anxious and vulnerable to the judgments of others (Millon);
covers up a sense of inadequacy and deficiency with pseudo-arrogance and pseudo-grandiosity (Millon);
has a tendency to periodic hypochondria (Forman);
alternates between feelings of emptiness and deadness and states of excitement and excess energy (Forman);
entertains fantasies of greatness, constantly striving for perfection, genius, or stardom (Forman);
has a history of searching for an idealized partner and has an intense need for affirmation and confirmation in relationships (Forman);
frequently entertains a wishful, exaggerated, and unrealistic concept of himself or herself which he or she can't possibly measure up to (Reich);
produces (too quickly) work not up to the level of his or her abilities because of an overwhelmingly strong need for the immediate gratification of success (Reich);
is touchy, quick to take offense at the slightest provocation, continually anticipating attack and danger, reacting with anger and fantasies of revenge when he or she feels frustrated in his or her need for constant admiration (Reich);
is self-conscious, due to a dependence on approval from others (Reich);
suffers regularly from repetitive oscillations of self-esteem (Reich);
seeks to undo feelings of inadequacy by forcing everyone's attention and admiration upon himself or herself (Reich);
may react with self-contempt and depression to the lack of fulfillment of his or her grandiose expectations (Riso).

He was a 711 clerk, that's kind of like going to law school isn't it?

If Dick Cheney posted on a blog that he plotted 911 and he later denied it. And all the evidence you had was a truther saying it was on a comment on his blog that the truther in question would have access to the ability to edit at any time you would not be suddenly writing apology blogs about all the things you have said about 911 truthers.

Truther alert !!

Kaiser said to VTV:

Um excuse me, that's not the point here. I'm actually after hard evidence, but you're now trying to erect a wall that would bar any future evidence from being valid. I find that odd. Your strange parable defies the pragmatic nature of what is actually transpiring. You had one theory that fell apart, and now youre on this second one. I also find it odd that you commented on Chris Jenning's that you had been impersonated, but the first theory you came here with was that there were photoshops.

VTV is repeatedly stretching the ability for any evidence offered up kaiser, as I posted an image elsewhere I am going to have to provide a fresh one to keep originality:

You said someone said James Kush lies on his blog.

Noone said any such thing even that quote you just supplied doesnt say it, so the only person saying it here is you.

VTV, why did you post to Jennings that you were impersonated, but then suggested here that they were photoshops before coming back to this theory of impersonation?

@Kaiser Because he's a liar. Also he's stealing your Cheetos.