FLAT STANLEY wrote:The supposed amputee's were legless before the actual firecracker went off, here is the actual footage no wonder there's no blood. watch for the limp.[urlhttps://youtu.be/M7N3EvGIkms][/url]
Again, this has been proven as rubbish. The Gentleman who was an amputee is called Nick Vogt, the guy who lost his legs in the blast, was Jeff Bauman.
It's hard to take you serious at all to be honest after the fake quote you posted as a fact!
Joined: Dec 05 2001 Posts: 25122 Location: Aleph Green
JLM32 wrote:Oh look who's back! Mr emoticon himself! Thought you were bored of me and had many better things to do. Another half truth and deflection attempt (You're good at these) What's really entertaining is how you continually deliberately miss the point. A Daily crackpot website quoted that as undeniable proof "The lack of blood proved the Boston Bombing was a hoax" I have simply proved that this is easily discredited, much like the large majority of the fruitcake section of society that see a hoax or set up in everything.
Are you in the habit of "disproving" (ROFLMAO!) other people's conspiracies on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites? Must be a real pain for those folk constantly having to follow you about in search of debates any rational person might expect to take place in situ. Should we expect responses to RLFANS transplanted into http://www.starwarscollectors.com or italktotheporpoises.net - or maybe gardengnomepics.xxx?
Quote:I would lambast everyone at stating that almost everything was a hoax without any real concrete proof, yes damn right I would. Oh yes, don't worry, I didn't miss your "I think it's very unlikely" Not a couple of hours after you had attempted to belittle one of my posts because it didn't give an exact figure in percentage! I sometimes can't make my mind up on here, if you're actually a parody account or just so wrapped up in your own self importance you don't notice the many gaping holes in what you say.
Hey - you're the guy marching into threads, labelling people "lunatics", declaring to all and sundry the "stupidity" of ... erm ... words - not to mention debunking complex arguments using the novel technique of concentrating entirely on some infinitessimally small fragment (which I doubt anyone in this thread had ever heard of previously) and then announcing triumphantly that because said fragment doesn't tally with your own "expert" testimony it's now possible to write off the bulk of the over-arching argument. I would say this is like putting your hand under a giant tarpaulin, fishing out a single blade of grass and then claiming the hidden item simply must be a lawn. But in your case you're not even sure what's in your hand really is grass!
Quote:I'm still laughing about you preaching to us all on the Saints forum, that we would be changing our minds when Saints made Old Trafford again!
Saints fan predicts Saints victory on a Saints board.
You really never learn, do you?
JLM32 wrote:Oh look who's back! Mr emoticon himself! Thought you were bored of me and had many better things to do. Another half truth and deflection attempt (You're good at these) What's really entertaining is how you continually deliberately miss the point. A Daily crackpot website quoted that as undeniable proof "The lack of blood proved the Boston Bombing was a hoax" I have simply proved that this is easily discredited, much like the large majority of the fruitcake section of society that see a hoax or set up in everything.
Are you in the habit of "disproving" (ROFLMAO!) other people's conspiracies on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites? Must be a real pain for those folk constantly having to follow you about in search of debates any rational person might expect to take place in situ. Should we expect responses to RLFANS transplanted into http://www.starwarscollectors.com or italktotheporpoises.net - or maybe gardengnomepics.xxx?
Quote:I would lambast everyone at stating that almost everything was a hoax without any real concrete proof, yes damn right I would. Oh yes, don't worry, I didn't miss your "I think it's very unlikely" Not a couple of hours after you had attempted to belittle one of my posts because it didn't give an exact figure in percentage! I sometimes can't make my mind up on here, if you're actually a parody account or just so wrapped up in your own self importance you don't notice the many gaping holes in what you say.
Hey - you're the guy marching into threads, labelling people "lunatics", declaring to all and sundry the "stupidity" of ... erm ... words - not to mention debunking complex arguments using the novel technique of concentrating entirely on some infinitessimally small fragment (which I doubt anyone in this thread had ever heard of previously) and then announcing triumphantly that because said fragment doesn't tally with your own "expert" testimony it's now possible to write off the bulk of the over-arching argument. I would say this is like putting your hand under a giant tarpaulin, fishing out a single blade of grass and then claiming the hidden item simply must be a lawn. But in your case you're not even sure what's in your hand really is grass!
Quote:I'm still laughing about you preaching to us all on the Saints forum, that we would be changing our minds when Saints made Old Trafford again!
Saints fan predicts Saints victory on a Saints board.
FLAT STANLEY wrote:The supposed amputee's were legless before the actual firecracker went off, here is the actual footage no wonder there's no blood. watch for the limp.[urlhttps://youtu.be/M7N3EvGIkms][/url]
There were 18 amputees as a result of the Boston bomb. Are you saying they were all actors who were in on it?
"Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him."
Mugwump wrote:Are you in the habit of "disproving" (ROFLMAO!) other people's conspiracies on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites? Must be a real pain for those folk constantly having to follow you about in search of debates any rational person might expect to take place in situ. Should we expect responses to RLFANS transplanted into http://www.starwarscollectors.com or italktotheporpoises.net - or maybe gardengnomepics.xxx?
Hey - you're the guy marching into threads, labelling people "lunatics", declaring to all and sundry the "stupidity" of ... erm ... words - not to mention debunking complex arguments using the novel technique of concentrating entirely on some infinitessimally small fragment (which I doubt anyone in this thread had ever heard of previously) and then announcing triumphantly that because said fragment doesn't tally with your own "expert" testimony it's now possible to write off the bulk of the over-arching argument. I would say this is like putting your hand under a giant tarpaulin, fishing out a single blade of grass and then claiming the hidden item simply must be a lawn. But in your case you're not even sure what's in your hand really is grass!
Saints fan predicts Saints victory on a Saints board.
You really never learn, do you?
I cant decide if you are just being awkward, or if you are that wrapped up in your own self importance that you don't read everything people say because you believe you are always right. The example I have given relates to the Boston Bombing which has been quoted on here, and I have used a like minded person as an example to show how easily claims of these so called hoax can be disproven. As I've stated the example I have quoted is just one of many. This one claims "Undisputable proof" and cites this as an example, I have just showed how easily "Undisputable proof" issued by fruitcakes can be discredited.
This is as opposed to yourself, that patronises, belittles and attempts to stamp down anyone who does not agree with any of your ideas. All in the main, without a scrap of concrete evidence and a healthy sprinkling of, "Leads me to believe" "Causes me to think" and is "Likely to".
Again you attempt to twist the truth, and again I will correct you. There were a number of Saints fans on the Saints page who stated we weren't good enough to make the final. You shouted each and every one down, saying we were wrong and that we would change our minds when we made another Grand Final. Even at one point berating us for having the temerity to question a team "That put their bodies on the line for us!" Well, I'm still waiting for us to make this Final. Looks like you were wrong.............. AGAIN!
I Never learn? I believe you should assess your own development before passing judgement. You're seen as at best deluded on here. A figure of fun on the Wigan board and not much better on the Saints one. I would suggest it's yourself that has never learnt.
Mugwump wrote:Are you in the habit of "disproving" (ROFLMAO!) other people's conspiracies on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites? Must be a real pain for those folk constantly having to follow you about in search of debates any rational person might expect to take place in situ. Should we expect responses to RLFANS transplanted into http://www.starwarscollectors.com or italktotheporpoises.net - or maybe gardengnomepics.xxx?
Hey - you're the guy marching into threads, labelling people "lunatics", declaring to all and sundry the "stupidity" of ... erm ... words - not to mention debunking complex arguments using the novel technique of concentrating entirely on some infinitessimally small fragment (which I doubt anyone in this thread had ever heard of previously) and then announcing triumphantly that because said fragment doesn't tally with your own "expert" testimony it's now possible to write off the bulk of the over-arching argument. I would say this is like putting your hand under a giant tarpaulin, fishing out a single blade of grass and then claiming the hidden item simply must be a lawn. But in your case you're not even sure what's in your hand really is grass!
Saints fan predicts Saints victory on a Saints board.
You really never learn, do you?
I cant decide if you are just being awkward, or if you are that wrapped up in your own self importance that you don't read everything people say because you believe you are always right. The example I have given relates to the Boston Bombing which has been quoted on here, and I have used a like minded person as an example to show how easily claims of these so called hoax can be disproven. As I've stated the example I have quoted is just one of many. This one claims "Undisputable proof" and cites this as an example, I have just showed how easily "Undisputable proof" issued by fruitcakes can be discredited.
This is as opposed to yourself, that patronises, belittles and attempts to stamp down anyone who does not agree with any of your ideas. All in the main, without a scrap of concrete evidence and a healthy sprinkling of, "Leads me to believe" "Causes me to think" and is "Likely to".
Again you attempt to twist the truth, and again I will correct you. There were a number of Saints fans on the Saints page who stated we weren't good enough to make the final. You shouted each and every one down, saying we were wrong and that we would change our minds when we made another Grand Final. Even at one point berating us for having the temerity to question a team "That put their bodies on the line for us!" Well, I'm still waiting for us to make this Final. Looks like you were wrong.............. AGAIN!
I Never learn? I believe you should assess your own development before passing judgement. You're seen as at best deluded on here. A figure of fun on the Wigan board and not much better on the Saints one. I would suggest it's yourself that has never learnt.
JLM32 wrote:Again, this has been proven as rubbish. The Gentleman who was an amputee is called Nick Vogt, the guy who lost his legs in the blast, was Jeff Bauman.
It's hard to take you serious at all to be honest after the fake quote you posted as a fact!
Gee Whizz its like playing table tennis with a five year old. Like i said before it doesn't matter what i provide as evidence it'll just bounce and ricochet of your well rounded antenna. However i'm willing to present the proof that Baumer and Vogt have duped the likes of you and your small minded army. I'm using actual on the scene photographic evidence to put this subject to bed. Baumer and Vogts are actors an oscar should be awarded.
No doubt you won't digest the discreppance's as usual. Even the supposed photographed Baumer at the scene is calm, cool and collective showing no evidence of agonising pain afterhaving his legs blown off supposedly, even the photographed Baumer at the scene and post firecracker looks increasingly dubious its the same person
Theres many more glaring holes like this Case closed. Good luck
JLM32 wrote:Again, this has been proven as rubbish. The Gentleman who was an amputee is called Nick Vogt, the guy who lost his legs in the blast, was Jeff Bauman.
It's hard to take you serious at all to be honest after the fake quote you posted as a fact!
Gee Whizz its like playing table tennis with a five year old. Like i said before it doesn't matter what i provide as evidence it'll just bounce and ricochet of your well rounded antenna. However i'm willing to present the proof that Baumer and Vogt have duped the likes of you and your small minded army. I'm using actual on the scene photographic evidence to put this subject to bed. Baumer and Vogts are actors an oscar should be awarded.
No doubt you won't digest the discreppance's as usual. Even the supposed photographed Baumer at the scene is calm, cool and collective showing no evidence of agonising pain afterhaving his legs blown off supposedly, even the photographed Baumer at the scene and post firecracker looks increasingly dubious its the same person
Theres many more glaring holes like this Case closed. Good luck
FLAT STANLEY wrote:Gee Whizz its like playing table tennis with a five year old. Like i said before it doesn't matter what i provide as evidence it'll just bounce and ricochet of your well rounded antenna. However i'm willing to present the proof that Baumer and Vogt have duped the likes of you and your small minded army. I'm using actual on the scene photographic evidence to put this subject to bed. Baumer and Vogts are actors an oscar should be awarded.
No doubt you won't digest the discreppance's as usual. Even the supposed photographed Baumer at the scene is calm, cool and collective showing no evidence of agonising pain afterhaving his legs blown off supposedly, even the photographed Baumer at the scene and post firecracker looks increasingly dubious its the same person
Theres many more glaring holes like this Case closed. Good luck
Glaring holes like a quote you use as a FACT, being completely and utterly wrong do you mean? Like I've said, anything after that can't be taken seriously really. Any of this so called evidence you have is all explained. You are still yet to provide any concrete proof at all.
Just so you are aware. At the Boston Bombing, there were a number of volunteer Doctors, Nurses and EMT's who all assisted with the injured and have acknowledged that their were People who lost limbs. So for your devilish plan to work, they would ALL have to be in on the act too, that or they would have to be turned away from assisting to help. Seeing as how we know for a FACT this didn't happen, I would say again you are talking utter rubbish. I think your tin foil hat is too tight!
FLAT STANLEY wrote:Gee Whizz its like playing table tennis with a five year old. Like i said before it doesn't matter what i provide as evidence it'll just bounce and ricochet of your well rounded antenna. However i'm willing to present the proof that Baumer and Vogt have duped the likes of you and your small minded army. I'm using actual on the scene photographic evidence to put this subject to bed. Baumer and Vogts are actors an oscar should be awarded.
No doubt you won't digest the discreppance's as usual. Even the supposed photographed Baumer at the scene is calm, cool and collective showing no evidence of agonising pain afterhaving his legs blown off supposedly, even the photographed Baumer at the scene and post firecracker looks increasingly dubious its the same person
Theres many more glaring holes like this Case closed. Good luck
Glaring holes like a quote you use as a FACT, being completely and utterly wrong do you mean? Like I've said, anything after that can't be taken seriously really. Any of this so called evidence you have is all explained. You are still yet to provide any concrete proof at all.
Just so you are aware. At the Boston Bombing, there were a number of volunteer Doctors, Nurses and EMT's who all assisted with the injured and have acknowledged that their were People who lost limbs. So for your devilish plan to work, they would ALL have to be in on the act too, that or they would have to be turned away from assisting to help. Seeing as how we know for a FACT this didn't happen, I would say again you are talking utter rubbish. I think your tin foil hat is too tight!
Joined: Dec 05 2001 Posts: 25122 Location: Aleph Green
JLM32 wrote:I cant decide if you are just being awkward, or if you are that wrapped up in your own self importance that you don't read everything people say because you believe you are always right. The example I have given relates to the Boston Bombing which has been quoted on here, and I have used a like minded person as an example to show how easily claims of these so called hoax can be disproven. As I've stated the example I have quoted is just one of many. This one claims "Undisputable proof" and cites this as an example, I have just showed how easily "Undisputable proof" issued by fruitcakes can be discredited.
The example you mentioned was not quoted on here until you introduced it. At that point you provided a proof which wasn't a proof. There isn't a doctor in the land who would GUARANTEE that shock would - IN ALL CASES - prevent the bleed-out of an amputated limb alone. You've just made yourself look silly ... again.
Quote:This is as opposed to yourself, that patronises, belittles and attempts to stamp down anyone who does not agree with any of your ideas. All in the main, without a scrap of concrete evidence and a healthy sprinkling of, "Leads me to believe" "Causes me to think" and is "Likely to".
Whereas you deal in certitudes? I've not seen much evidence so far.
Quote:Again you attempt to twist the truth, and again I will correct you. There were a number of Saints fans on the Saints page who stated we weren't good enough to make the final. You shouted each and every one down, saying we were wrong and that we would change our minds when we made another Grand Final. Even at one point berating us for having the temerity to question a team "That put their bodies on the line for us!" Well, I'm still waiting for us to make this Final. Looks like you were wrong.............. AGAIN!
Oh good grief! Listen to yourself! I can't believe you're STILL whining on about predictions which were made MONTHS AGO about Saints likely fortunes. How OLD are you? You do realise Rugby League is a game, right?
Quote:I Never learn? I believe you should assess your own development before passing judgement. You're seen as at best deluded on here. A figure of fun on the Wigan board and not much better on the Saints one. I would suggest it's yourself that has never learnt.
What is it with your OBSESSION over how others perceive me? Why do you care? If every person on this site hated my guts you'd draw no benefit from it. It strikes me the real issue here is the perception you have of yourself.
Mugwump wrote:The example you mentioned was not quoted on here until you introduced it. At that point you provided a proof which wasn't a proof. There isn't a doctor in the land who would GUARANTEE that shock would - IN ALL CASES - prevent the bleed-out of an amputated limb alone. You've just made yourself look silly ... again.
Whereas you deal in certitudes? I've not seen much evidence so far.
Oh good grief! Listen to yourself! I can't believe you're STILL whining on about predictions which were made MONTHS AGO about Saints likely fortunes. How OLD are you? You do realise Rugby League is a game, right?
What is it with your OBSESSION over how others perceive me? Why do you care? If every person on this site hated my guts you'd draw no benefit from it. It strikes me the real issue here is the perception you have of yourself.
Again, you try to twist the truth, you are extremely tiresome. I haven't once said it would occur in all cases. Further evidence that you don't read all is said, just believe in your own self importance and decide that you are right. What the shock explanation does, is to provide a viable and realistic reason as to why not much blood was present. Certainly more than someone claiming the lack of blood is indisputable proof that the Boston Bombing was a hoax, without any reference to medical reasoning.
I have dealt in facts, shock does constrict blood flow. The Rockefeller quote on here was incorrect. You just inflict your opinion on people without any grounding.
Whining? And you ask how old I am! Grow up. You see this is what you do, when you have no answer to a point. Try to derail and then use your silly little emoticons. Again it wont work, you were wrong, you are more often than not wrong yet you have a real issue admitting it.
OBSESSED - After one comment on it! My god you have a high opinion of yourself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
