View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A Challenge to Scepcop

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 09 Nov 2009, 00:17

The following interchange is in another topic:
Nostradamus wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Rumsfeld and Cheney changed NORAD's procedures just before 9/11 for a while. Watch the "Zero" film I referred, a Boston air traffic controller will explain to you why.


Provide the evidence and not a reference to a movie. I am not going to waste my time watching an entire movie to find the lie. I believe that you have already posted links to the movie with zero content. It shouldn't be an effort for you to provide the so-called evidence.

Nostradamus brings up an excellent point here and I offer a challenge to Scepcop. I'm not sure what a Boston ATC has to do with NORAD, so instead of having us watch an hour and a half film that provides no sources, I would like for you to find a valid source for your claim that "Rumsfeld and Cheney changed NORAD's procedures just before 9/11 for a while." Please, provide a legitimate source that we all can agree is unbiased and confirms this claim.
Granted Scepcop, this may take a while, but "perhaps you'll learn something."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 09 Nov 2009, 16:12

a friend of a friend that has no reason for lying and is a charming sweet person counts as reliable source?
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 09 Nov 2009, 19:39

ciscop wrote:a friend of a friend that has no reason for lying and is a charming sweet person counts as reliable source?

Uhhhh, no. :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 09 Nov 2009, 19:48

It is now a day after I posted this challenge. Scepcop has made 10 other posts, but has not responded to neither this challenge nor my comments pertaining to the promotions of the Generals which he alluded to not being able to be debunked.
Scepcop, if you can't properly find the source for the information you have posted, please let us know so we can move on to other things. I'm going to hate to do a "Scepcop Challenge Watch" every day. But I will until you respond. I'm fed up with you making posts without having any evidence to support your statements. Your Rumsfeld and Chaney comment should have a solid source that can easily be found and posted if it exists. If not, then that is my conclusion that your conspiracy theories are based on lies and misinformation. Additionally, and this is a warning to you, every 9/11 conspiracy post you make from now on will have a reply from me regarding this challenge until it gets answered by you.
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 10 Nov 2009, 07:19

i predict if anything
scescop will bark and acuse
but he will not produce the source your are looking for
since he doesnt need it
thats the beauty of believers, they got nothing but faith ¨in something¨
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 10 Nov 2009, 20:25

Well, Day 2 of the Challenge and nothing so far. I'm holding out hope for him though!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 12 Nov 2009, 03:41

Day 3 with still no comment on my Rumsfield/Chaney challenge or the "debunking the General's promotion" sources showing that Scepcop's sources aren't valid. Hmmm, I'm beginning to think my theory about him posting information that he didn't even begin to bother to look into is correct. But hey, it's only been 72 hours...
Fingers cross!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 12 Nov 2009, 05:15

bumping this back to the top....
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 14 Nov 2009, 04:15

ProfWag wrote:The following interchange is in another topic:
Nostradamus wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Rumsfeld and Cheney changed NORAD's procedures just before 9/11 for a while. Watch the "Zero" film I referred, a Boston air traffic controller will explain to you why.


Provide the evidence and not a reference to a movie. I am not going to waste my time watching an entire movie to find the lie. I believe that you have already posted links to the movie with zero content. It shouldn't be an effort for you to provide the so-called evidence.

Nostradamus brings up an excellent point here and I offer a challenge to Scepcop. I'm not sure what a Boston ATC has to do with NORAD, so instead of having us watch an hour and a half film that provides no sources, I would like for you to find a valid source for your claim that "Rumsfeld and Cheney changed NORAD's procedures just before 9/11 for a while." Please, provide a legitimate source that we all can agree is unbiased and confirms this claim.
Granted Scepcop, this may take a while, but "perhaps you'll learn something."

Day 5 and no reply. I see Scepcop's risen from the dead and reappeared so I wanted to make sure this got "bumped" again. Also, if you can find this valid source by Monday, November 16, 2009, and can get virtually ANYONE to agree with you that it is valid and supports the "NORAD precedure" statement from above or can contradict my "General and promotion rebuttal" that was posted in a separate thread, I will personally ban myself from this entire forum for a month effective immediately. Unfortunately, because of personal reasons, the "anyone" does not refer to HF2 or accidentwaitingtohappen. Sorry guys. So c'mon Scepcop, what are you waiting for! Here's your chance to get rid of me until almost the end of the year!!!
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Nov 2009, 04:46

I think that SCEPCOP has been doing the 'View Your Posts' thing and may not be seeing any topics that he has not recently posted to. Just a guess.

I also don't know what to say when skeptics want to 'ban' themselves. That's new to me. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 14 Nov 2009, 05:17

NinjaPuppy wrote:I think that SCEPCOP has been doing the 'View Your Posts' thing and may not be seeing any topics that he has not recently posted to. Just a guess.

I also don't know what to say when skeptics want to 'ban' themselves. That's new to me. :lol:

The ban just shows how how confident I am that Scepcop posts stuff he hasn't looked into, trying to pass them off as valid information, and then he runs and hides. But if he's doing the View Your Posts thing, I can work on that also. I'd send him a PM, but I want this public.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 14 Nov 2009, 11:37

uuum.. we are gonna miss you wag
you were a light of rationality in this crazy yet funny forum

and
i think scescop defends himself saying he is spreading some "interesting info" he found
the problem is that he lacks the tools of critical thinking
so a lot of things just escapes him
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 14 Nov 2009, 20:01

ciscop wrote:uuum.. we are gonna miss you wag
you were a light of rationality in this crazy yet funny forum

and
i think scescop defends himself saying he is spreading some "interesting info" he found
the problem is that he lacks the tools of critical thinking
so a lot of things just escapes him

I'm not gone yet as I haven't seen him post his sources. And I feel pretty confident that he not only won't post it, but can't since those sources probably don't exist. Just like everything else with conspiracy theories, they are factless claims that are filled with lies and misrepresented garbage.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Nov 2009, 20:09

ProfWag wrote:Just like everything else with conspiracy theories, they are factless claims that are filled with lies and misrepresented garbage.

That's some pretty strong language there ProfWag.

How about some of these? http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468046
It's the best I could find on short notice. :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 15 Nov 2009, 20:31

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Just like everything else with conspiracy theories, they are factless claims that are filled with lies and misrepresented garbage.

That's some pretty strong language there ProfWag.

How about some of these? http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468046
It's the best I could find on short notice. :D

My bad Ninja, I was specifically referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of course there have been conspiracies that turned out to be true (though not all that many, really).
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests