Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

The Worst Conspiracy Theorist


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#106    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:41 PM

View PostIron_Lotus, on 09 March 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

is this all you do now is dodge and run away from questions posed to you?

Who wouldn;t be afraid of invisible questions?  :unsure2:


#107    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 10 March 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I can only judge by what others post (having blocked turbonium ages ago) but it seems we can now add the simple term "assault" to those turbonium doesn't understand.  From Cornell..


Note the bolded parts...  Turbonium, why do you think the legal term "battery" exists?



Do you have a point to make, because I don't see it here...


#108    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 10 March 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Turbs... read this post again... this time with your eyes open... it contains something you're not familiar with: E - V - I - D - E - N - C - E

As for the things you haven't proven...  PICK A TOPIC....any one of them...





It's not any better from another reading.

Yahoo answers is obviously a reputable source, everyone knows that! :su

I like the part about deadly Bible assault, too!


#109    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,268 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:15 PM

View Postturbonium, on 16 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

It's not any better from another reading.

Yahoo answers is obviously a reputable source, everyone knows that! :su

I like the part about deadly Bible assault, too!

Interesting how you completely ignore the article from the BBC and the Examiner. Hmmm... could that be because they are credible sources and provide more evidence that destroys your already ludicrous and tenuous position...? :yes:

But then again, we've known for a long time that in your eyes, credibility of a source is of no importance to you. It only matters that what is being said confirms your willful ignorance:

View Postturbonium, on 01 November 2008 - 08:30 AM, said:

Look, the bottom line is finding out whether or not the story itself is valid. Not who reports the story. You're trying to discredit the source when it's only the material presented by that source which is relevant.

:rolleyes:




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#110    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:56 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 16 March 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Interesting how you completely ignore the article from the BBC and the Examiner. Hmmm... could that be because they are credible sources and provide more evidence that destroys your already ludicrous and tenuous position...? :yes:


I've already addressed the lying "witnesses",mentioned in the BBC article....  

Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/2272321.stm


I asked you to prove those "witnesses" did not give false statements. You ignored my request, since the video actually proves Sibrel never "aggressively poked" Aldrin with his Bible! So the BBC article you're holding up as an irrefutable source...has just been refuted!

So those claiming Sibrel assaulted Aldrin prior to the punch are wrong.



And let's look at your other (supposedly) reliable, crebible source - the Examiner..

[i]Aldrin threw a punch that rocked Sibrel. Sibrel later tried to file charges against Aldrin, but basically got laughed at[/b]

Again, I asked you to prove Sibrel filed charges against Aldrin, or that Sibrel "tried to file charges". And again, you failed to prove your claim. It's entirely possible he did file charges, but I need some proof for it. So if you have any, show it. If you can't, it will show the Examiner is not a credible, reliable source.

And I'd really like you to prove the Examiner's next claim - that Sibrel "basically got laughed at" when he allegedly filed these charges!

For that matter, what kind of credible source would even say someone "basically got laughed at"? You obviously can't differentiate a news article from a biased piece littered with unfounded remarks. I can just imagine news like that - 'After Joe Smith was assaulted, he reported the incident at the Police Station. and he basically laughed at!'  . :su


There you go.

Are you going to run away from it, or make lame excuses to avoid it?


#111    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:11 AM

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office issued a statement on the Aldrin-Sibrel incident. Here's an article on it...




The Los Angeles County district attorney's office will not file charges against Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin for hitting a man who has long insisted the U.S. moon landings were a hoax.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Elizabeth Ratinoff, who is in charge of the district attorney's Beverly Hills office, said in a statement that Aldrin had been provoked into hitting Bart Sibrel of Nashville in the face in front of the Luxe Hotel in Beverly Hills last week.


"Aldrin was confronted by ... Sibrel who arranged to surprise Aldrin and challenge his integrity about walking on the moon," Ratinoff said. "Video depicts Sibrel following Aldrin on the street and thrusting a Bible at Aldrin. Others attempted to protect Aldrin as he walked away from Sibrel.

"Ultimately, Sibrel called Aldrin a thief, liar and coward. Video depicts Aldrin striking Sibrel once in the face with a fist. Sibrel immediately turns to the camera crew present and appears to twice state, 'Did you get that?'

"Sibrel was not knocked down," Ratinoff said. "He sustained no visible injury. He did not seek medical attention. Aldrin has no prior criminal arrest history.

"Based on the totality of the circumstances," she added, "it is unlikely a jury would find Aldrin guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge."

The 72-year-old Aldrin's attorney, Robert O'Brien, said, "We welcome this decision and appreciate the prompt and professional manner in which the Beverly Hills Police Department and the Los Angeles district attorney's office handled this matter.

"We expect that in the future Mr. Sibrel will refrain from harassing Dr. Aldrin and his fellow Apollo astronauts."

Sibrel, at a Beverly Hills news conference, said he believed the district attorney's office was simply not inclined to prosecute a celebrity like Aldrin


http://articles.lati...local/me-buzz21

So let's go over a few comments...

"Video depicts Sibrel following Aldrin on the street and thrusting a Bible at Aldrin."
.
Really? Sibrel was "thrusting" a Bible at Aldrin? Give me a break!

""Sibrel was not knocked down,"

Oh, right - it's not battery (or assault) if you're still standing up afterwards! That makes perfect sense! :yes:

"He sustained no visible injury."

You must have visible injuries or it isn't battery/assault. Damage to Internal organs is allowed, because it's usually not visible!! :no:    .

[i[" He did not seek medical attention."[/i]

You must chech into ER or it isn't battery/assault

"Aldrin has no prior criminal arrest history".

And iif he punched another guy, he still won't have an arrest history, and so on!

A first offender is often given less punishment, but it is still considered an offence.


"Based on the totality of the circumstances," she added, "it is unlikely a jury would find Aldrin guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge."

More like this 'Based on the totality of our lame excuses, we can't let it go to a jury!'

Yup





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users