Skeptic Project

by the way

"the last thing people want is the truth "

What exactly is the truth without evidence ? If he cant even provide the simple evidence of his signature how can we believe any other of his claims as truth ?

>> 1.David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994. 109.

I've seen variants of this source for years, and I've asked and asked for the primary source and I've never seen it, ever. I've come to the conclusion it simply doesn't exist -- though if it does, I'd sure as hell love to see it.

"show us how it's "NOT" correct jackass

you keeep saying you have proof its not really rockefellerrs quote

show us a link to a source that explains this"

It isn't about his signature being a lie.

Its about his signature not being true.

I hate it when CTs turn it into some personal crusade.

Do I think a CT is lying when they put some BS quote in their signature? No. I just think they're wrong. But I do think refusing to find out whether its true or not is intellectually dishonest and that's the sign of a True Believer. If someone is a True Believer you can talk until you're blue in the face and nothing is going to change.

Proof by verbosity.

I hate it with a passion.

Its an inability to understand context.

Or an ability to see what they want to see.

That's the difference between the idiots and the crazies.

Is the belt color based of your real life martial arts skill level or is it just to indicate the number of forum posts you have?

"I wish i got payed to do this, its kinda of fun actually."

I do too, unfortunately... no matter how many CT's accuse us of this, I still haven't received a single check.

"show us how it's "NOT" correct jackass

you keeep saying you have proof its not really rockefellerrs quote

show us a link to a source that explains this"

The burden of proof is on him to prove it true with his evidence, since you are not the one making the claim it is true and what he said. If he can not provide the evidence then he is the one who is in bad standing. Also he's name calling you are getting to him, :D

"I think the best way to do that is by watching every AJ documentary and address every single point and prove them to be false. You should then post all your findings on sherdog. "

1. Link them to this website's thorough debunking of some of AJ's more popular films.

2. Watch them eat shit.

Agreed this will freak them out a little, it wont make them read it or consider it but it will make them look silly to onlookers when they ignore you providing evidence while they refuse to do so.

It's funny how EVERY conspiracy theorist has the classic holier-than-thou attitude, even while being proved to be irrational and idiotic.

It boggles my mind, reading through that thread, and seeing the same responses I see all the time.

CTs are like paranormal guys, they love asking you to prove something isn't true, rather than them having to prove it is. If it's a Rockefeller quote, he should have an actual primary source he can demonstrate, but instead he asks you to prove it isn't real.

This is where I use my "FDR spring rolls" analogy -- 100% original:

Prove to me FDR didn't like spring rolls. Sure, there's no mention in any literature for or against him liking it, and there's no evidence he ever had them at all, but that doesn't mean they weren't his favorite food.

Since you can't prove he didn't like them, hell you can't prove they weren't his favorite food, therefore they must have been his favorite food. This is the same logic they use, that since something can't be easily proven, it must be true. That's the opposite of how science and even logic actually work, and if that were true, any person who made anything up, ever, would automatically be considered right until someone disproved it.

He makes the claim, it's on him to prove it. Just as it was on the creators of cold fusion to prove it worked, but they couldn't -- interestingly this also proves to CTs that cold fusion actually does work and it's just being hidden, despite hundreds of labs and thousands of scientists all over the world trying to duplicate it based on the provided "evidence" (math, directions, etc) by Stanley Pons.

The guy just copy/pasted a fake Rockefeller quote, 99.999% of the time no CT ever reads anything, they only like watching videos, and so their research includes watching conspiracy videos. I've talked to a lot of ex-CTs who tell me that it "never occurred to [them] to look at non-CT videos for 'research'."

In the case of that guy above, I imagine he won't watch or read anything that goes against his firmly held beliefs, and he can come up with all types of paranoid reasons as to why anyone would disagree with him. What you'll find if you stick around the skeptic/debunker community is that many CTs actually make this belief system into a religion which they take on absolute faith and don't need evidence. There are several hate mails I've received where people indeed do say "I don't need evidence to know it's true."

A weapon I find is useful in annoying the shit out of CTs is constantly reminding them of everything they have yet to prove true, often keeping a list at the bottom of every post or email:

By the way, you've still yet to prove:
+ The Rockefeller quote
+ That I am X or believe Y
+ That Tom Cruise is a reptoid

They hate it and it's funny, but it's important because you're asking them, and reminding others, of what they did and didn't not prove. A lot of times when people read or watch things, they will only remember times people were right, instead of how wrong they were. A great example being John Edward who talks to dead people or Sylvia Brown who is a superpsychic, both are wrong more times than they are right, which is worse than random, but because people tend to remember only correct things, they seem "dead on" all the time.

If he asks you to prove something isn't real again, just as him to prove FDR didn't like spring rolls. It's the same logic and requires you to disprove a negative, which is essentially impossible to do anyone.

As stated by others here: the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, not on the person asking for evidence.

@anticultist,

Even if that guy reads those articles on our site, he'll either say that I was paid to write them or we're just some CIA/NSA-created web site in order to spread disinformation. He's so fucking nutty, I wouldn't be surprised if I get some hate mail from him soon.

The hate mail section is rife with me constantly listing things, but I can't remember a single case where they actually made me take something off the list.

Then allow me to host them on my blog for you if thats ok with edward ?

Alternatively, we can delete this thread (like true psy ops) and then continue the exchange in a group private message. My inbox needs another 100 or so notifications. :P

Edit: Or just do some snippets of the major points AJ gets wrong all the time. Or look through the predictions page for all the stuff he's said that never comes true. Or his interpretations of legislation that never quite turn out the way he said they would.