If you disbelieve all "conspiracy theories," you then believe . . .

[Gamolon]

BELIEVING in Physics is unscientific.

Your videos are unscientific as has been explained many times.

 

[Seymour Flops]

To clarify what you are stating:

Russia collusion
“Official” story: Russia made numerous efforts to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor, through social media posts. It claimed that several Trump associates lied to investigators looking into election interference.
CT version: That the claims of "Russia collusion" that led to the Meuller investigation were invented out of whole cloth by the Clinton campaign and propped up and spread by tax-funded efforts of U.S. intelligence, with the knowledge of then President Obama.

Is that correct?

Close, but you leave out much of the falsehoods in the official story that Dems and their media pushed as proven fact. That Trump himself colluded with Putin to guide Russia's efforts to help him be elected is the underlying lie that spawned many other lies that were part of the official version.

My favorite is Adam Schiff's claim that he had "clear evidence of collusion" that was "not circumstantial." That false claim has never been retracted by Schiff, nor the media talking heads that reported it.

As you likely know, Schiff never produced such evidence.

Also we only know for sure that Obama was briefed about Clinton's plan to smear Trump using a hired foreign intell operator while Obama was president. We can guess that the many Obama appointees who pursued the false allegations leaking damaging innuendo along the way kept Obama posted after he left ofgice, but we have no evidence of that.

 

[Gamolon]

Also we only know for sure that Obama was briefed about Clinton's plan to smear Trump using a hired foreign intell operator while Obama was president.

Are you saying the Durham report provides clear evidence that Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically?

If so, can you provide the pertinent passages in the Durham report that proves this? I mean you've obviously read the entire report yes and that's what your basing these claims on.

 

[Skylar]

I will very briefly paraphrase it. I'm sure you think that you are cleverly dodging a losing argument by giving me a lengthy typing assignment.

The Mueller report claimed that Russia made numerous efforts to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor, through social media posts. It claimed that several Trump associates lied to investigators looking into election interference.

You intentionally left out a rather significant part, and the one most relevant to your entire argument.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

No collusion. Coming up on half a decade ago.

Given that your entire argument was about the 'official story' being that there was collusion......you intentionally left out any mention from the AG or the Mueller report that the 'collusion' issue was resolved years and years ago.

You know that the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. Yet you intentionally omitted any mention of it, mischaracterizing the 'official version'.

Why? If your argument had merit, none of that would have been necessary.

 

[Skylar]

With the Durham Report released by the same DOJ that released the Mueller Report, the official version now states that Candidate Trump and his supporters were given disparate treatment compared to Candidate Clinton in the investigations of each of their campaigns.

So per your reasoning, the Durham report is now the official version. And the official version can't be trusted, with the CT having the truth.

Would you care to see what your CT's are saying NOW?

They're calling for mass executions, insisting treason was committed, insisting that Obama colluded with China to get Trump, insisting that Durham is part of the Deep State.

So following your argument that the Conspiracy Theorists are right and the Official Version is wrong, when do you propose we arrest and execute Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

I suppose this is the part where you flagrantly ignore your own standards and process and desperately engage in the logical fallacy of cherry picking.

Well, again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You intentionally left out a rather significant part, and the one most relevant to your entire argument.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

No collusion. Coming up on half a decade ago.

Given that your entire argument was about the 'official story' being that there was collusion......you intentionally left out any mention from the AG or the Mueller report that the 'collusion' issue was resolved years and years ago.

You know that the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. Yet you intentionally omitted any mention of it, mischaracterizing the 'official version'.

Why? If your argument had merit, none of that would have been necessary.

The official version, leaked by federal law enforcement agencies, repeated endlessly by Democrat lawmakers, and gleefully reported in establishment media was that there WAS collusion many years before Mueller finally was forced to admit that it was fake the whole time.

To this day Adam shiff has not admitted that, and he is certainly part of the establishment. So the establishment is still clinging to That official version.

Even to this day many official Democrats officially state that Mueller never proved that there was not collusion, so they still cling to it. I challenge you to point to one Democrat on here whoever admitted there was no collusion after having insisted that there was.

Let me test your honesty here: is the collusion Canard itself a conspiracy theory? Is Adam Schiff a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Lastamender]

If I was going to list *every* failed conspiracy, I could do little else. That list is merely a dusting of the available batshit.

You do little else.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So per your reasoning, the Durham report is now the official version. And the official version can't be trusted, with the CT having the truth.

No, I never said that the official version is never the truth, nor that the CT is always the truth.

Would you care to see what your CT's are saying NOW?

They're calling for mass executions, insisting treason was committed, insisting that Obama colluded with China to get Trump, insisting that Durham is part of the Deep State.

Calling for mass executions isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a wild over-reaction to something, be it conspiracy theory or not.

So following your argument that the Conspiracy Theorists are right and the Official Version is wrong, when do you propose we arrest and execute Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Are you really that dumb or just frustrated at losing and lashing out?

I suppose this is the part where you flagrantly ignore your own standards and process and desperately engage in the logical fallacy of cherry picking.

Well, again.

Providing examples =/= cherry picking.

Back to reality, was/is the Russian Collusion Theory a CT, or not? If it is, does that mean it always was?

 

[Gamolon]

Back to reality, was/is the Russian Collusion Theory a CT, or not? If it is, does that mean it always was?

Since you missed it the first time, I'll ask again.

Are you saying the Durham report provides clear evidence that Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically?

If so, can you provide the pertinent passages in the Durham report that proves this? I mean you've obviously read the entire report yes? That's what you're basing your quoted claims/statements below on correct?

I mean there HAS to be definitive proof in the Durham report of a plan, based on lies, to smear Trump right? And that Obama was briefed on this plan? So please site a couple of instances of this proof within the report. This should be good.

Also we only know for sure that Obama was briefed about Clinton's plan to smear Trump using a hired foreign intell operator while Obama was president. We can guess that the many Obama appointees who pursued the false allegations leaking damaging innuendo along the way kept Obama posted after he left ofgice, but we have no evidence of that.

 

[Gamolon]

BELIEVING in Physics is unscientific.

Here's is a perfect example of how "unscientific" your collapse model is. The model you created for your video goes against your own criteria for creating a model to test. See your quote below.

You are too stoopid to comprehend the problem to understand my answer to your question.

We are talking about a structure with multiple levels. It HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE STATIC LOAD.

But to test the possibility of collapse I deliberately made it AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still SUPPORT the STATIC LOAD.

So the supports at every LEVEL are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

That is the CRITERION!

Then it was a test to see if it would collapse. The loops had to get stronger to support the static load of MORE WASHERS. The dowel is not part of the collapse model it is necessary to keep the WEAK MODEL from falling over.

Read the first two parts in red and then your last statement in red. You state that part of the criteria was that a model has to be as weak as possible, but still support the static load. Then you go on to say you needed a wooden dowel through the middle of all the washers, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THER MODEL, but was needed to keep the model from falling over.

Are you kidding me?!



You went against your own criteria!!!



You are truly clueless!!!!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Since you missed it the first time, I'll ask again.

Are you saying the Durham report provides clear evidence that Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically?

If so, can you provide the pertinent passages in the Durham report that proves this? I mean you've obviously read the entire report yes?

Sorry I missed that. Yes of course it does. I wouldn't think that's in question.

Speaking of questions, why are you avoiding mine?

That's what you're basing your quoted claims/statements below on correct?

I mean there HAS to be definitive proof in the Durham report of a plan, based on lies, to smear Trump right? And that Obama was briefed on this plan? So please site a couple of instances of this proof within the report. This should be good.

Yes that is the whole report, not just a couple of "instances." If i pick a couple lines won't you just accuse me of cherry picking?

Tell ya what, i'll quote some highlights with the evidence the report provides after you answer ONE question. Was the claim.thatTrump colluded with Russia in 2016 a CT in your opinion? Yes or no?

 

[PeterPilot]

I don't need to believe that the government is 100% honest to demand evidence of conspiracy theorists and their fantastically stories.

Yet you refuse to demand evidence of the many official narratives you believe. You refuse to examine the many facts that contradict so many official narratives. You routinely believe the claims of known liars, and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Gamolon]

Was the claim.thatTrump colluded with Russia in 2016 a CT in your opinion? Yes or no?

Clarification.

If the conspiracy theory was that trump colluded with Russia, what "Official event/explanation" was it an alternative explanation for?

Like I've shown before, here are examples:

"Official" explanation: WTC1, WTC2, and WT7 collapsed due to fire and/or aircraft impact damage
Conspiracy theory: WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

In your case:

"Official" explanation????
Conspiracy theory: Trump colluded with Russia

 

[Seymour Flops]

Clarification.

If the conspiracy theory was that trump colluded with Russia, what "Official event/explanation" was it an alternative explanation for?

Like I've shown before, here are examples:

"Official" explanation: WTC1, WTC2, and WT7 collapsed due to fire and/or aircraft impact damage
Conspiracy theory: WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

In your case:

"Official" explanation????
Conspiracy theory: Trump colluded with Russia

Ok, I see the source of your confusion. You are assuming that there is always an “official explanation” in contrast to every conspiracy theory. Indeed there often is a well-developed official explanation, such as the ”Lone Gunman Theory” of the Kennedy assasination that contradicts several conspiracy theories.

I guess in a way there is always an official explanation. However, sometimes the official explanation is simply that the alleged conspiracy never happened. That happens when there is no or very little evidence to support the CT. Sometimes the “official explanation” is nothing more than the plain and obvious truth that there is no reason to believe the CT, and that it makes little sense.

So IF Russia/Trump collusion is a CT, the official explanation is that Trump did not collude with Russia. There. Is little to no evidence supporting the CT that the official explanation needs to explain. The main reason for the belief that Trump colluded with Russia is a combination of people falsely claiming it in various ways, the media running with it to help the Dems, and people thinking ‘sounds like something that asshole would do!’

I’m not asking you to accept my claim that the idea that Trump colluded with Russia is a CT. You do not have to answer that yes, the idea of Trump colluding with Russia is a conspiracy theory. I’m just asking whether you believe it is, yes or no, and if so, has it always been.

 

[Gamolon]

Ok, I see the source of your confusion. You are assuming that there is always an “official explanation” in contrast to every conspiracy theory. Indeed there often is a well-developed official explanation, such as the ”Lone Gunman Theory” of the Kennedy assasination that contradicts several conspiracy theories.

I guess in a way there is always an official explanation. However, sometimes the official explanation is simply that the alleged conspiracy never happened. That happens when there is no or very little evidence to support the CT. Sometimes the “official explanation” is nothing more than the plain and obvious truth that there is no reason to believe the CT, and that it makes little sense.

So IF Russia/Trump collusion is a CT, the official explanation is that Trump did not collude with Russia. There. Is little to no evidence supporting the CT that the official explanation needs to explain. The main reason for the belief that Trump colluded with Russia is a combination of people falsely claiming it in various ways, the media running with it to help the Dems, and people thinking ‘sounds like something that asshole would do!’

I’m not asking you to accept my claim that the idea that Trump colluded with Russia is a CT. You do not have to answer that yes, the idea of Trump colluding with Russia is a conspiracy theory. I’m just asking whether you believe it is, yes or no, and if so, has it always been.

It's not "my" confusion. It's your inability to understand what a conspiracy theory is. Here are a couple of definitions of a conspiracy theory:

"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"

"a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot"

"a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group"

Based on those definitions above (unless you have different definitions), what event, circumstance, standard explanation for an event, or unexplained event, is the theory "Trump colluded with Russia" an alternate explanation for? What is that theory an explanation for?

The statement "Trump colluded with Russia" is an accusation not a theory that explains something. At least not anything that you have provided as of yet.

You are assuming that there is always an “official explanation” in contrast to every conspiracy theory. Indeed there often is a well-developed official explanation, such as the ”Lone Gunman Theory” of the Kennedy assasination that contradicts several conspiracy theories.

The "Lone Gunman Theory" is the official explanation is it not? Then there conspiracy theories that have ALTERNATE explanations that try contradict what the "Official" explanation is and explain what REALLY happened.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not "my" confusion. It's your inability to understand what a conspiracy theory is. Here are a couple of definitions of a conspiracy theory:

"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"

"a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot"

"a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group"

Yes, the powerful conspirators, the covert group, the organization, was Trump, Putin and various underlings was the CT.

Based on those definitions above (unless you have different definitions), what event, circumstance, standard explanation for an event, or unexplained event, is the theory "Trump colluded with Russia" an alternate explanation for? What is that theory an explanation for?

For Trump’s success in the election.

The statement "Trump colluded with Russia" is an accusation not a theory that explains something. At least not anything that you have provided as of yet.


The "Lone Gunman Theory" is the official explanation is it not? Then there conspiracy theories that have ALTERNATE explanations that try contradict what the "Official" explanation is and explain what REALLY happened.

Yes, Gamolon. That’s why I gave it as an example of a conspiracy theory that DOES have an alternate “official” explanation.

So, wading through all that a couple of times, I gather that your answer is no, Trump-Russia collusion was/is not a conspiracy theory since there was never any evidence at all for it. It was a baseless accusation that was never even developed enough to be called an actual theory.

Yet, look at what the DOJ put the country through over an accusation with zero evidence other than evidence created by a person who would paid to create it, by the Clinton Campaign and by the Justice Department.

It seems that you have gone through a lot of word games, here. Is there a point that you are trying to make, so you can get on with it?

 

[Gamolon]

Yes, the powerful conspirators, the covert group, the organization, was Trump, Putin and various underlings was the CT.

For Trump’s success in the election.

Yes, Gamolon. That’s why I gave it as an example of a conspiracy theory that DOES have an alternate “official” explanation.

So, wading through all that a couple of times, I gather that your answer is no, Trump-Russia collusion was/is not a conspiracy theory since there was never any evidence at all for it. It was a baseless accusation that was never even developed enough to be called an actual theory.

Yet, look at what the DOJ put the country through over an accusation with zero evidence other than evidence created by a person who would paid to create it, by the Clinton Campaign and by the Justice Department.

It seems that you have gone through a lot of word games, here. Is there a point that you are trying to make, so you can get on with it?

Damn!

Took you long enough!

"Official" explanation: Trump won the election fair and square
Conspiracy theory: Trump colluded with Russia to win the election

Is that correct?

If so, yeah I'd say that matches the definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Damn!

Took you long enough!

"Official" explanation: Trump won the election fair and square
Conspiracy theory: Trump colluded with Russia to win the election

Is that correct?

If so, yeah I'd say that matches the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Took you long enough, you mean. You could have said that last sentence without all the stalling.

So . . . to recap . . . the idea that Trump colluded with Russia was a conspiracy theory. That CT was pushed as the truth by Democrats who claimed to have seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of it. It was sustained as a CT by selective leaks by people we pay to do fair investigations when they are called for.

The FBI/DOJ/DNC took that theory and pushed an investigation that was intended to interfere with the presidency of a man elected in spite of all the 2016 interference. The Durham Report brought the evidence for that together neatly.

It showed:

-That the opening of "Operation Crossfire Hurricane" was improper in that it violated the FBI's established norms when investigating senior political figures. In particular, the way they investigated Trump was wildly different from how they approached an investigation of Clinton over concerns of foreign influence and assistance for her campaign.

Page 9 (quoted exactly, except that I separated one long paragraph into smaller ones)

The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. As described in Section IV.B, in the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the election. In each ofthose instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution.

In one such matter discussed in Section IV.B.l, FBI Headquarters and Department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated. And in a third, the Clinton Foundation matter, both senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how those matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months leading up to the election.

These examples are also markedly different from the FBI' s actions with respect to other highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server. Unlike the FBI's opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information.

This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director ofthe CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Corney and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action. 25 The investigative referral provided examples of information the Crossfire Hurricane fusion cell had "gleaned to date."26

The idea that the FBI had opened an investigation on Trump in a manner inconsistent with its usual practice was long said to be a "conspiracy theory." That so-called CT is now shown to be completely true.

More after you respond to this.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Gamolon I'm guessing you have lost interest in this thread. No problem, I have not.

What I posted above is the introduction to the first chapter on the FBI's malfeasance in the Operation Crossfire/Hurricane. I recommend you read it all. When you get to the conclusion you will see this key recommendation:

Page 17

This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out. Rather, it is intended to accurately describe the matters that fell under our review and to assist the Attorney General in determining how the Department and the FBI can do a better, more credible job in fulfilling its responsibilities, and in analyzing and responding to politically charged allegations in the future. Ultimately, of course, meeting those responsibilities comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines and policies currently in place, guidelines that date from the time of Attorney General Levi and that are designed to ensure the rule of law is upheld. As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old. The promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI's guiding principles of "Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity" are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI' s mission of "Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States."46

I don't believe that the same exact people who perpetuated the Crossfire-Hurricane hoax are capable of reneweed fidelity to the FBI's guiding principle. Strozk and Page were fired and the guy that faked the email was convicted and fired, but nearly everyone else is still there, or replaced by poltical appointees just as eager to weaponize the bureau.

If we want an FBI that resembles the idealized one the taxpayers think we are paying for, whether it has ever existed or not, we will not get it under the current leadership, likely down to mid-management.

If we decide not to defund and disband the entire organization, as I would prefer, we must at least get rid of all leadership above Field Office SAC, and put each field office under the control of the district U.S. Attorney, who each report to an Attorney General who understands the difference between law enforcement and political dirty tricks.

This can happen if Trump or DeSantis is the next president. It will never happen under a Democrat. Why would they give up their own Brownshirts?