Skeptic Project

What I'm saying is that your (VTV) opinions on what constitutes "admissible" evidence have very little to do with the real analyses that go into laws and rulings considering what is or is not admissible in a particular proceeding.

Whether a statement or piece of evidence is capable of being altered has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A police confession signed by the accused is capable of being altered. Does this mean that signed confessions are never admissible--and cannot be conclusive--in criminal proceedings? No, of course not. If there's evidence that a confession has been doctored, that evidence must be judged. But the simple capability to alter something doesn't mean, that in the absence of evidence of its alteration, that it's not entitled to credibility.

@Kaiser Falkner it's not about finding the truth it's now about creating confusion until you and others give up as well as the people viewing this site.

This is what you and others on CS should be doing. Thank VTV for coming onto CS for trying to shed light onto this topic as I'm sure it took time out of his busy schedule. Say that you have had enough discussion about this and that VTV can continue to talk but you'll no longer talk about this and that he'll merly be wasting his time in continuing to do so.

"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?"

You can take someone's IP address, and post it next to anything they said with photoshop. Since I posted there they had the ability to do this since then. My point initially was to say that the presence of my IP address in a screenshot alone is no evidence.

When I looked at the situation more closely, I started to remember better what had taken place. It was to be fair about two months ago. When Anti-cultist posted his own option of being able to edit comments other people had made on his own blog, it became apparent. Originally I figured that James had simply deleted my comments and then reposted as VTV, because I am not registered. You could go there and post as VTV right now. I don't have an account to track it to.

Now, that being said. I know I didn't post that information. As I didn't have it. I had no idea who Peter's parents were. I still don't even know if those are actually Peter's parents.

What you are asking people to believe now, is that for no apparent reason I posted two links and nothing else on his blog in response to him being humiliated on the Rick Ross forums. (Which is what that blog post was about.) That for some random reason I would just decide to do that, even though it would by no means benefit me.

Or, that I would do that specifically in some elaborate conspiracy to discredit James Kush. Who discredits himself all the time.

In the end, you will believe whatever you choose. When you consider that the only person who has access to the final evidence would be exposed and discredited forever if it was revealed that he edited my posts, I don't find it likely that he would just fess up since he is guilty. So this is further confirmation bias. You can just simply go with whatever he says because it suits your agenda at the moment.

People who know me, know better. And though it has been fun to watch you guys step on your dicks, none of this really matters. Nothing here at CS changes. Even if tomorrow I was found completely innocent you would still be doing what you always do. You all claimed you had rock solid proof, I proved that the evidence in question could of easily been doctored. And anyone who's opinion I actually care about knows James Kush well enough that if given the chance to do so, he would. Your opinions don't matter.

http://i51.tinypic.com/r8i63n.jpg" />

So this is further confirmation bias. You can just simply go with whatever he says because it suits your agenda at the moment.

As stated if James can prove they werent edited, or is proven to have edited them thats is all that matters. Your opinion or expectance of us to believe you over him or him over you is irrelevant.

You have zero evidence to suppport your claim other than what you put forward as your defence, this itself holds no weight regardless of if it makes sense or not.

For all we know James's claim of you trying to force him to do something may be as true as he says. It seems unlikely but since you are a liar its not best for us to just cast james aside in favour of your position.

@Meurtos

"Whether a statement or piece of evidence is capable of being altered has absolutely nothing to do with it."

Bullshit. Criminals get off when cops mishandle evidence all the time. And the reason why is because there is a standard for how evidence is gathered, and how it is handled after it is gathered. And by whom. In this case the evidence is being handled by someone who stands accused of doctoring evidence. Which would never take place in a legal proceeding.

"A police confession signed by the accused is capable of being altered. Does this mean that signed confessions are never admissible--and cannot be conclusive--in criminal proceedings? No, of course not. If there's evidence that a confession has been doctored, that evidence must be judged. But the simple capability to alter something doesn't mean, that in the absence of evidence of its alteration, that it's not entitled to credibility."

A police confession signed generally in the presence of witnesses, therefore verifiable. I did not put my "signature" on the screenshots. And the only person who is in a position to handle the "confession" is not an officer of the law, duly sworn or appointed to handle such evidence. Or in a position to be held accountable realistically if it was mishandled.

Your example of a police confession does not in any fashion compare to "Oh, he posted this on my blog. Nevermind the fact that I could of doctored it at any time. And there is nothing he could do to stop me after the fact."

"We don't "believe" you posted it. We have hard evidence that you did and we stand by it. You have yet to provide a valid defense outside of circumstantiality, which isn't good enough."

The definition of "hard evidence" is not evidence gathered and handled by someone who is hostile to the accused. That could easily be altered at any time.

Try again.

@VTV thank you for stopping by I really appreciate that you took time out of your busy schedule to shed light onto this. I am really bushed from this discussion and will not be participating as much do to this. You can however continue to discuss this with others but in my opinion I feel it's a waste of time.

Your IP and your email are your signature, the only thing which remains to be discovered is if the material was doctored as you claim, which you can not.

@VTV prove it

I'm going to sue you all for making me post on this forum instead of cleaning my cat's litter box.

I have retained VTV as my attorney. You're all fucked.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2lkzpr4.gif" />

Neil needs more toolbars.

I did not put my "signature" on the screenshots.

Your IP and your email are your 'signature' in this instance, shut the fuck up fatty.