[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Jay-Z has his hands full with the new baby and all. He can't be everywhere at once.

OH MY GOD! It finally makes sense!

[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

Except I'm not believing either side of the story. The burden of proof was originally on the OP, but then you and CaveBear came in and made fun of the OP without any real explanation. Then you/CB told me that I was wrong just because I thought that the OP might have some credibility. At this point, it is up to you guys to proof why I shouldn't believe the OP.


Just to keep the lively debate going.

http://www.nicholasrockefeller.net/

I'm not saying this proof anything at all, but it's an interesting site.

The burden of proof was on the OP, he posted a ridiculous Youtube video. We made fun of his proof, as we should have. You were wrong for thinking the OP had any credibility, which I just proved to you.

Don't you understand that this guy isn't related to the famous Rockefellers? Why are you showing me this?

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

Except I'm not believing either side of the story. The burden of proof was originally on the OP, but then you and CaveBear came in and made fun of the OP without any real explanation. Then you/CB told me that I was wrong just because I thought that the OP might have some credibility. At this point, it is up to you guys to proof why I shouldn't believe the OP.


Just to keep the lively debate going.

http://www.nicholasrockefeller.net/

I'm not saying this proves anything at all, but it's an interesting site.

You really don't see the problem with the bolded? The burden of proof was on the OP (who never posted again), but you think he might have some credibility, so that's OK - you're just gonna roll with it. We, however, don't think he has credibility, so now the burden of proof is on us?

You really don't get how this works, do you?

Oh, and there were no real sources on that page. In case you were wondering.

[CollectiveConfusion]

One world government, everybody gets a chip, all the money is in the chips, the chips are implanted in our bodies, they control the chips. AHHH!

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

You really don't see the problem with the bolded? The burden of proof was on the OP (who never posted again), but you think he might have some credibility, so that's OK - you're just gonna roll with it. We, however, don't think he has credibility, so now the burden of proof is on us?

You really don't get how this works, do you?

Oh, and there were no real sources on that page. In case you were wondering.

You do have a point. While I agree that the burden of proof was on the OP and in a way it still is. The OP should be the one to explain/prove his point. However, at the point that you come in and say that it's all bullshit, you have to present some reasoning for saying it's bullshit.

Just the same as with my 9/11 theory. If I tell you 9/11 was an inside job, it is up to me to prove that... but if you come in and just say "bullshit" then you have to explain why you think it's bullshit. You are more than welcome to have your opinion but you should back it up as well.

I'll agree that the burden of proof remains on the OP. I just think you should follow the same precedent and back up any statements you make... if you think the link the OP provided was bullshit, just explain why.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

You do have a point. While I agree that the burden of proof was on the OP and in a way it still is. The OP should be the one to explain/prove his point. However, at the point that you come in and say that it's all bullshit, you have to present some reasoning for saying it's bullshit.

Just the same as with my 9/11 theory. If I tell you 9/11 was an inside job, it is up to me to prove that... but if you come in and just say "bullshit" then you have to explain why you think it's bullshit. You are more than welcome to have your opinion but you should back it up as well.

I'll agree that the burden of proof remains on the OP. I just think you should follow the same precedent and back up any statements you make... if you think the link the OP provided was bullshit, just explain why.

I did - I researched on the internet (as did CC) and found absolutely no connection between Nicolas Rockefeller and the Rockefellers. That's. All. The. Proof. We. Need.

The OP (and semi-you) are the ones trying to prove something outside the accepted norm. CollectiveConfusion and I are part of that accepted norm. You guys, and only you guys, have a burden of proof here.

That's also the same for 9/11 conspiracy theories - the people who are with the accepted norm (the government didn't do it) don't have to prove anything to the people trying to convince us otherwise.

[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

You do have a point. While I agree that the burden of proof was on the OP and in a way it still is. The OP should be the one to explain/prove his point. However, at the point that you come in and say that it's all bullshit, you have to present some reasoning for saying it's bullshit.

Just the same as with my 9/11 theory. If I tell you 9/11 was an inside job, it is up to me to prove that... but if you come in and just say "bullshit" then you have to explain why you think it's bullshit. You are more than welcome to have your opinion but you should back it up as well.

I'll agree that the burden of proof remains on the OP. I just think you should follow the same precedent and back up any statements you make... if you think the link the OP provided was bullshit, just explain why.

So with the proof I gave you, do you believe this thread is at all relevant?

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by CollectiveConfusion

So with the proof I gave you, do you believe this thread is at all relevant?

The link you provided does not show a familial link between Nicholas Rockefeller and J.D. Rockefeller. I agree with that.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to view the video that the OP provided because it is blocked from the computer that I have access to during the week, so I can't say with 100% certainty that this thread is completely irrelevant

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR;111910772[B

]I did - I researched on the internet (as did CC) and found absolutely no connection between Nicolas Rockefeller and the Rockefellers. That's. All. The. Proof. We. Need. [/b]

The OP (and semi-you) are the ones trying to prove something outside the accepted norm. CollectiveConfusion and I are part of that accepted norm. You guys, and only you guys, have a burden of proof here.

That's also the same for 9/11 conspiracy theories - the people who are with the accepted norm (the government didn't do it) don't have to prove anything to the people trying to convince us otherwise.

You didn't show me this "proof" until I asked for it. I just wanted to know why you claimed that this thread was bullshit. Once you provided that information, I said thank you and agreed that the link showed that Nicholas Rockefeller was not related to J.D. Rockefeller.

Also, the "accepted norm" isn't necessarily right. While I agree that it is up to the person on the outside to prove the "accepted norm" wrong, if the person in the "norm" claims that the person on the outside is full of shit, they should explain why.

If I claim that gravity doesn't exist, you could say "bullshit" and while you may be right in thinking so, you should at least back your statement up and point me to Newton's theory or something...


edit
I'd also like to add that just because something is the "accepted norm" doesn't mean there is any real evidence to back it up. Nearly 80% of Americans are Christian... seems like that would be the "accepted norm"

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

You didn't show me this "proof" until I asked for it. I just wanted to know why you claimed that this thread was bullshit. Once you provided that information, I said thank you and agreed that the link showed that Nicholas Rockefeller was not related to J.D. Rockefeller.

Also, the "accepted norm" isn't necessarily right. While I agree that it is up to the person on the outside to prove the "accepted norm" wrong, if the person in the "norm" claims that the person on the outside is full of shit, they should explain why.

If I claim that gravity doesn't exist, you could say "bullshit" and while you may be right in thinking so, you should at least back your statement up and point me to Newton's theory or something...

You people need to work harder in order to convince society as a whole that 9/11 was an inside job.

[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

The link you provided does not show a familial link between Nicholas Rockefeller and J.D. Rockefeller. I agree with that.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to view the video that the OP provided because it is blocked from the computer that I have access to during the week, so I can't say with 100% certainty that this thread is completely irrelevant

But if Nicholas Rockefeller isn't related to JD, why even bother watching the video? The whole assertion the video is trying to make is that this guy is credible because he's part of the family that's pulling the strings... without that he's just a guy with a coincidental name. So without even seeing it wouldn't that make it irrelevant? He's no more credible than you or I.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

You people need to work harder in order to convince society as a whole that 9/11 was an inside job.

There have been a lot of people working very hard to prove that 9/11 was a lie. I don't think there is enough "real" evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an "inside job" but I think you'd be a fool to think that the government didn't lie about what really happened.

I think there are the people who believe that some things about 9/11 were lies and there are the people who believe the government doesn't lie to them. I can't imagine any other reason to believe the official story.

The problem with debating the "conspiracy theories" is that the people who believe the government's story are always going to find some way to justify that story. And I'm will to admit that the inverse applies to the conspiracy theorists.

I'll honestly say that I don't know the truth behind 9/11. I just believe that there are unanswered questions that lead me to believe that something fishy happened that day.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by CollectiveConfusion

But if Nicholas Rockefeller isn't related to JD, why even bother watching the video? The whole assertion the video is trying to make is that this guy is credible because he's part of the family that's pulling the strings... without that he's just a guy with a coincidental name. So without even seeing it wouldn't that make it irrelevant? He's no more credible than you or I.

I tend to agree with you that if they aren't related then this thread may be irrelevant. However, I don't know if the claim is that they are related and therefore he has inside information. From the quick Google searches I did (albeit not "real" research) it appears that Nicholas Rockefeller is a member of the CSR. Maybe there is some correlation based on that?!?! I really don't know, but I think it is unfair to judge the relevance of the OP's thread without having even seen what the OP posted.

[CollectiveConfusion]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I tend to agree with you that if they aren't related then this thread may be irrelevant. However, I don't know if the claim is that they are related and therefore he has inside information. From the quick Google searches I did (albeit not "real" research) it appears that Nicholas Rockefeller is a member of the CSR. Maybe there is some correlation based on that?!?! I really don't know, but I think it is unfair to judge the relevance of the OP's thread without having even seen what the OP posted.

That's reasonable. Once you see the video you'll be able to toss this one out, though.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by CollectiveConfusion

That's reasonable. Once you see the video you'll be able to toss this one out, though.

You might be right, but like I said I can't judge it until I see what the OP posted. The ONLY thing I have seen from the OP was the thread title.

edit
Seeing as how the OP only created the thread and then posted once more saying "at least I got a response", maybe this thread was created just to keep the debates between me, CaveBear, JakeGyllenhaal and CollectiveConfusion going.