Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again; you are no different. It's just a human condition. After all, no-one is perfect.
You have just made a mistake...and got caught.
-
Well - there is my first example. I said that I was happy for OTHER moderators to split the thread, or keep it whole if the JFK forumites were happy. I was happy either way. Jack accuses ME of wanting to split it in a report ("I PROTEST BURTON MOVING THIS THREAD. IT RELATES TO JFK, NOT TO ANOTHER CATEGORY!"). Even when presented with this and given the opportunity to admit he made a simple error, Jack claims:
You have just made a mistake...and got caught.Jack cannot admit he made an error. I'll still follow up with more examples, even though this has amply demonstrated my point.
-
Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again; you are no different. It's just a human condition. After all, no-one is perfect.
-
BTW - this will involve 9-11 and Apollo claims, so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread and move this section to the political conspiracies sub-forum since it doesn't involve JFK. If the JFK forumites don't mind, then I am happy for the thread to remain whole and stay here.
I protest this thread being moved to another category. I started this thread IN THE JFK CATEGORY AND IT DOES
NOT BELONG IN ANOTHER CATEGORY. IT HAS ATTRACTED QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTARY, SO WHY MOVE IT WHERE
NOBODY WILL SEE IT???
JACK
Thank you Jack! You have claimed in a report that you protest my moving the thread. Where did I say that, Jack? I said - as quoted above - "...so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread...".
Are you going to admit you are wrong here Jack? It would help your assertion if you did.
-
BTW - this will involve 9-11 and Apollo claims, so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread and move this section to the political conspiracies sub-forum since it doesn't involve JFK. If the JFK forumites don't mind, then I am happy for the thread to remain whole and stay here.
I protest this thread being moved to another category. I started this thread IN THE JFK CATEGORY AND IT DOES
NOT BELONG IN ANOTHER CATEGORY. IT HAS ATTRACTED QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTARY, SO WHY MOVE IT WHERE
NOBODY WILL SEE IT???
JACK
I am happy for it to remain here. Jack supports this opinion. Do others agree?
-
I'll take a leaf out of the Jack White book of obfuscation techniques and refuse to debate any of the following.... until I have finished posting all the examples. At THAT time I'll debate the merits or faults or my arguments.
-
BTW - this will involve 9-11 and Apollo claims, so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread and move this section to the political conspiracies sub-forum since it doesn't involve JFK. If the JFK forumites don't mind, then I am happy for the thread to remain whole and stay here.
-
This is only another example of what I mean. SAYING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Please show any counter studies disproving any of my studies. I have never yet seen one. And again...I do not DEBATE my studies. I present them. Take them or leave them. Or show counter studies disproving them...but do not just SAY I AM WRONG.
Jack
I'll do so in coming posts, but as always you'll just deny it and continue on your merry way. You even confirm it with the above statement: "I do not debate my studies". How can people convince you that you are in error when you refuse to discuss any fault with them! You have your lovely circular argument and won't leave that comfort zone for fear of the consequences: the harsh light of reality.
-
That story is getting more and more airplay, Michael. Even some Australian troops are apparently using the sights.
Did it say if the company owners were evangelical or born-again or particularly 'staunch' christians, or was it just a really bad idea?
-
I say what I mean and mean what I say. I immediately
redo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone.
That has been proven multiple times to be an incorrect statement.
It doesn't matter what evidence proves you wrong; you just refuse to accept it and therefore refuse to correct your so-called studies. I don't know about in the JFK debate, but there are multiple examples of you doing this in the 9-11 and Apollo debates.
-
I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discuss
information. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY.
I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile
arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me.
Jack
Translated that means: "I will make claims but not try to defend them when questioned, nor retract them when proven wrong."
-
Never try to use facts, logic or reasoning when Jack has one of his conspiracy moments.
-
Most of them have been banned from one forum, and another forum disallows them membership, but this forum permits them and even promotes some to supervisory positions.
Wow. Which mods (presuming that is a supervisory position) have been banned from other forums? I have never been on a JFK forum (apart from here), much less banned from a forum, so it can't be me.
Come on people - fess up!
-
What reason did they give for deleteing the Spartacus entry?
-
LOL! How long will it last? Can you give detail about the 'undermining'?
-
They got what a skeptic is wrong, too:
What Is Skepticism?
To quote Dr. Shermer: Skepticism is not a position; it's a process.
The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.
The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.
It's thus inaccurate to say "Skeptics don't believe in ghosts." Some do. Many skeptics are deeply religious, and are satisfied with the reasoning process that led them there. Skeptics apply critical thinking to different aspects of their lives in their own individual way. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree.
Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about "debunking" as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.
The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Skepticism is an essential, and meaningful, component of the search for truth.
-
Welcome Francois! I hope you enjoy yourself here and can add to our knowledge base.
-
but why is it that anytime there is a photo or video that disputes something you believe or claim, your response is that its been altered or tampered with?
It's the same with Apollo....
-
Len - enough. Two wrongs do not make a right.
C'mon Jack it's been nearly 11 hours haven't your Al Qaeda handlers sent you your instructions about how to reply yet?
-
Deleted duplicate topic titled Jim needs to discuss the evolution of an idea..., as it was inadvertently posted in the Conspiracy section instead of JFK. Thread available here.
-
-
What colour is WTC6 again Jack?
WTC 5
WTC 4
Time to get those eyes checked there fella.
-
Let's see:
Look at another building. Damaged areas a light grey, undamaged areas black.
What about WTC6?
So some areas were grey, but it was mostly black. Is there an explanation for the grey colour?
(all images except first one are Copyright © 2001 by Alex Marx)
WTC6 was black.
-
Enough Jack. You complain when people answer too quickly, you complain if people take a day to reply.
Why not just wait to see if he does refute your claim, and then address what he says? If he fails to reply then that would be tacit admission that you are correct.
The Goon Squad
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted