Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Astrocreep

Possible Evidence

296 posts in this topic

I think this video may answer some of the questions being asked:

It is the most convinsing video I have EVER seen!!

I'm sure you will find some faults but as with anything, it is very hard to please everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the one they are discussing i think. yes its pretty convincing but it has been semi-debunked, there are ways he could have done it besides psi and it doesnt follow all of the rules that were proposed in this thread (matt was active in the thread even). it is good either way though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is the one. The problem is back in 2006 he agreed to certain condition BEFORE making this video. He actually said, "Yes" w/the no misunderstood implication that he WOULD DO THIS:

Some of the things that he agreed to:

Clear See-Thru Table.

Feather, LWM in side the bowl lying loose on the table top.

Hand and face clearly seen during the video.

as-well-as other points that 5 months later he found "Moot", "Irrelevent", "silly" and "waste of time".

So basically one ordered: Ham & Cheese sandwhich, with Tomatoes, Mayo and Mustard, He wrote down Ham & Cheese, w/Tomatoe, Mayo and Mustard. Then handed over a piece of bread and cheese and said the rest was "moot", Irrelevent", "Silly" and "waste of time".

So let me ask a straight forward question -

Why agree to terms and conditions when you never had any intention of doing them??

Isn't that basically being dishonest and mis-leading? Basically LYING.

Then why get all EMO when you then present it knowing full well you didn't even come close to meeting the terms agreed upone.

There is only one reason: You could not do the demo and had to cut corners to "pull it off".

Only thing that is conviencing is that he could NOT do it w/the agreed upon terms and conditions. It's just that simple.

Want your 'bread and cheese' now and tell me this is "good"?? :blink:

PLUS - note he did not take the $75.00 challenge to validate his video - there is a reason he had to avoid this as well. What we did not see going on behind the camera would be seen. Think about that one too.

The only thing 'good' about it wondering what motors he used in the table. That's about it. (That is why he didn't use the clear table top that he said, "YES" - too.)

Edited by Jjbreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLUS - note he did not take the $75.00 challenge to validate his video - there is a reason he had to avoid this as well. What we did not see going on behind the camera would be seen. Think about that one too.

The only thing 'good' about it wondering what motors he used in the table. That's about it. (That is why he didn't use the clear table top that he said, "YES" - too.)

It was interesting to note that the pin/psiwheel did indeed look like it was being controlled!

At the rate of speeds it was rotating, and the almost flawless way it turned just did not seem right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was interesting to note that the pin/psiwheel did indeed look like it was being controlled!

At the rate of speeds it was rotating, and the almost flawless way it turned just did not seem right.

The other thing is - they were the same speeds both direction Slow and Fast. A friend that does these kinds of analysis's for the legal system clocked it. They were the same speeds.

Now here is the big question: IF he did use this using TK (highly doubtful) what is his problem setting into place the "Doubt Removal Protocols"? Seems to me, before 'believers' ask/state - well he has this kind of 'control' - WOW! That is some extreme control. Then why the EMO? Why the avoidance of taking the challenge? Why 5 months to set up a demo that avoided the very things he said, "yes" too? - Calling the "moot", "irrelevent" and so on - is just a desperate attempt to avoid getting busted for a scam - IF you have this kind of TK control - then "moot", "irrelevent" and so on would NOT need to be part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they were the same speeds both direction Slow and Fast. A friend that does these kinds of analysis's for the legal system clocked it. They were the same speeds.
You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

Huh? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to LIE just to discredit the video and Matt, Jj.

Exactly, WHAT? :huh:

Well, existeance! You seem to think you know something, why don't you go ahead and amuse us!

Edited by Dragonwick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know :)

Okay, and exactly how did you come to this conclusion? :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know :)

I'm beginning to wonder if we are even talking the same thing?? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They're not the same speeds (slow and fast), that's what I know :)

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying and I think you mis-understood me.

The Slow and Fast - He did this both directions:

Slow then Fast Clockwise

Slow then Fast Counter-Clockwise.

The thing I was pointing out that my friend did:

The slow and fast speeds were the same speed BOTH DIRECTIONS. Meaning the clear implication that a pump motor was more than likely used. Thought would not have been this exact of speed both directions. Now do you see my point?

Then if you argue - well "he has good control..." Ok, fine - then why did he need to 'cut corners' to do the demo?

Like the CLEAR TABLE TOP - that he said a CLEAR "YES- I can do that" That would of KILLED the electric motor question mark, very clearly! (pun intended)

Why didn't he have the feather light material at the base? That he agreed to? This too would have clearly shown NO MOTOR inside the table. They would have moved AFTER the pin wheel started to move - NOT before the fact. The reason why they were to be there.

See - there are seriously WAY TOO MANY FLAWS in this demo. It's not credible, it's not even "good" - when you actually go back to the give and take posts in 2006. He had a very clear understanding of what was expected and why. It only proved one thing: HE COULD NOT DO IT WITHOUT THE PROPS.

As I have stated: When you take the steps to remove the skeptics doubts: (Doubt Removal Protocols) you als REMOVE the ACTUAL SCIENCE that is doing this. It canNOT be done w/out the science clearly or w/illussions and/or trickery in effect. It's just that simple.

Edited by Jjbreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hello again. I just posted this at astral society and youtube, and think you all should give it a read.

Hello everybody, this is the moment you all have been patiently waiting for, and I thank you all for that. To be honest, I’m finding hard to articulate my thoughts at the moment, so I have decided to throw caution to the wind and just start talking.
and
were both social experiments, and both illusions. But before deciding how to react to this, I have good reasons behind my actions, and it’s important that you hear me out.

Though I have had my doubts about telekinesis for a long time now, this whole idea of making videos began roughly 18 months ago. I don’t recall exactly what made me decided to make the first video, but somehow I got the idea in my head to make a telekinesis video as a means to show that, despite what people may think, these videos are absolutely worthless as ‘evidence’ for the phenomenon known as telekinesis. In reality, it was half for entertainment, half for making a point.

The idea was to make the most convincing (amateur) psi wheel video on the internet, have people rally their support around it as a result, and then when the moment was right, to confess that this video was an illusion, and make the point that no matter how convincing these videos may seem, to always see things like this with a *healthy* level of skepticism, even if you are otherwise a believer in such things. I say a “healthy” level of skepticism because, contrary to my initial expectations, the most ignorant people of this whole experiment where the hardened skeptics. But ill get into that later on, trust me.

I’m a bit hesitant to share the secrets behind my illusions because the last thing I want is for people to use them to make more fake telekinesis videos. But then again, not explaining how I did it could jeopardize the original purpose of urging people to be level-headed, specifically (and ironically) when it come to being skeptical. After weighing the two concerns, I have come to the conclusion that it’s better to expose this information so that people can be aware of it, as opposed to hiding it so that others would have a harder time replicating videos similar to my own. But before I get into how I did it, I would like to clarify how I didn’t do it.

In no way, shape, or form did I use the following:

-Magnets

-Heat/Convection currents

-Electronics (of any sort)

-Video Editing

-Static

-Strings

-My left hand (lol)

-Or anything else people “knew” I was using…

And because of this, every single one of the hard-headed skeptics who blatantly talked sh** about the video were just as “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “gullible” as the believers they labeled as such, and perhaps even more so because at least the believers had a video on their side (a relatively convincing one at that), where as the skeptics had nothing but this unfounded arrogance in themselves by thinking, without question, that they “just knew” it was fake AND HOW it was faked. Like I had said many times in the midst of these debates, I was in a unique position to know just how full of sh** these people really were. They all thought they were so smart lol.

I would now like to take this opportunity to expose the names and locations of the 2 most ignorant skeptics I have run across during this whole experiment.

Jj Breen

Keith Mayes

Moving on, the trick was very simple. Both videos made use of the same gimmick, a trick table. That being said, however, still none of those things I listed above were used in this trick table. In the first video, a pin sized hole was drilled in both the surface of the table as well as the plastic bowl the set up was sitting on. From there, a person off camera was blowing into a tube that was connected to this hole (under the table) which cause the wheel to spin. The second video used this same principle, but in a more sophisticated fashion. The surface of the table is hollow, with two separate air channels going to two different pin holes. Two tubes could “plug in” to each hole on the hollowed legs, which were hidden by thin layer of laminate that could pop on and off. This is why you can’t see the bottoms of the two front legs on the video when the wheel is spinning. And again, I used an “associate” to plug and unplug the tubes as well as to blow into them for a more convincing illusion.

Kinda sucks now that you know how it’s done, huh?

In closing, the initial goal of the video was to urge a healthy sense of skepticism for believers when viewing such videos because they are just videos. They are suspect by nature; too foul play can be going on off camera. However, after fighting numerous skeptics as part of the role I needed to play, I was exposed to just how ignorant these skeptics could be. Even knowing that my video was fake, still…these people were so sure of themselves (sure of things they just couldn’t be sure of given what they had seen) that they were borderline delusional. Seriously. I began getting caught up in the debates because *I knew* they didn’t know this video was fake, simply because there is no way to know for sure based on what the video allowed people to see. And yet, I couldn’t expose them for the “frauds” they were because I was too busy being the fraud I was lmao. (Of course, I have been saying all along that this video isn’t proof and shouldn’t be seen as proof)

But now it’s different. I’ve been waiting for this for a loooong time. Little did I know that this experiment would go from teaching believers something about being level-headed to teaching skeptics something about being level-headed. And please don’t mistake this as an attack on telekinesis. Personally I don’t believe in it, but I’m not foolish enough to think it’s impossible. For those that do, you’re ignorant and arrogant. For all you knew, or should I say “didn’t know”, I could have been the real deal. And that’s the point. You just can’t know, one way or the other, unless you have the first hand experience.

I know what the rules are here, but I dont really care. You can ban me if you wish, me registering here was a means to a greater goal.

But here's the things. I get why you all were so skeptical, but I had a role to play. If any of you had actually done any research on me, like going to astral soceity and reading some of my posts, youd know that I too am very much a skeptic of telekinsis, and am an advocate of the randi challenge...believe it or not. Like i said before, I made the videos specifically to reach the people who fall for these videos, and to show them why its not such a wise thing to do.

But then I came here and realized that, as bad all that was, some of the skeptics I have run across, were so skeptical that it was no longer a virute, with this website being the prime example. And thats saying something coming from me, because im quite the skeptic. In fact, now that im able to "break character", id like to say that a lot of you have you heads up your asses because of your skepticism. I actually began to get mad at some of you because of how idiotic you have made skeptics out to be. But I dont even want to get back into it, im biting my tounge as we speak.

A lot of you are no more "wise of the world" then those you criticize, you just happen to be on opposite ends of the same scale. Its like Theism's relationship to Atheism; both like require faith in something that can't possible be known.

And before you can say "I knew it!!1!", let me stop you. You didnt know, thats the point. You could have suspected, and hell, you could have even forumated a way i could have pulled it off, but there is a world's difference between that and "knowing". And even if you were ultimately right, its this mistake in thinking we "know" that cause both problems; that of thse stupid tk videos and that of these stupid skeptics who actually think they know what is and isnt possible.

And, JJ you say you leave room open for the possibility, but its obvious that this is more of a figure of speech than an actual creed. Its clear how you really feel by the way you handled this discussion. Those who really leave themselves open the possibility are not cyncial as you are, and would most likely see no point in participating in such a discussion, to such an extent, because of the utter futlity of it all. I have run into many level-headed, well-balanced skeptics and these types seem to be unanimously indifferent about the video. But you aren't, and neither are you circle-jerk buddies.

You give sceince and reason a bad name because of your wonton skepticism and cyncality.

Edited by mattman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow - So I was right all along.....

Matt - I think you are p***ed off with me for a couple of reasons - for which now the above post shows it 'right on the button'.

** You are not a man of your word.

You are nothing more than a 2 bit college con. Call it "social experiment" - you still had to pull a CON to do your experiment. You even LIED MUTIPLE TIMES!

Wow - quite the character their Matt - at least I didn't lie at any given time. Funny now you cannot say the same.

I am amazed at the 'rationalization' for lying - truly amazed. This is what you learned in college: How to rationalize lying!?? (all under the excuse of "Social Experiment") Truly S A D.

When you posted your second video - I basically (yes go back and read my posts) stated: you ignored your agreement. AKA - A man that doesn't keep his "yes's a yes" aka you LIED - Now you proved that. That you did not keep your agreement from 2006. That you did indeed LIE. Call it 'social experiment' or other lame ass excuses. You now stated clearly - "Yes, I did NOT keep my word." Something you gave me 'hell' for calling you on when I was right all along. You could NOT do the TK w/out cutting corners - thus it was a scam and you were lying in every single post.

Then I'm 'bad' for not guessing the exact means by which you did it? I did say it had to do with the table. I also stated the speed of the spinning paper was mechanical - not - TK. So big fracking deal I didn't get the exact method you used. I think you actually got p***ed off w/me because I kept your lame excuses in the for-front. I am guilty of one thing: I expected you to keep your agreement from 2006 and when you did NOT - I called you on it.

So the question is: Why did you give me hell for calling you on it, when you knew I was right?

You are a 'man' for what you did?? :blink:

I don't know about anyone else - But I'm done with you ---- A liar is a liar, no matter how they rationalize it. That's what even makes this worse - your rationalization of and for the LIE!

Edited by Jjbreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's some funny crap. I didn't think he could do it with the required controls in place. And he couldn't. That somehow makes the skeptics jerks? Why? Because they didn't guess which one of a hundred ways you could have faked it by circumventing the required controls? You're a putz. And a fraud. Did you at least do a term paper or something on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, Matt! I hope you atleast feel better now that you've gotten your outright lying off your conscious.

Was it really worth it to go through 16 pages of you being a phony to only come back and say...

But then I came here and realized that, as bad all that was, some of the skeptics I have run across, were so skeptical that it was no longer a virute, with this website being the prime example. And thats saying something coming from me, because im quite the skeptic. In fact, now that im able to "break character", id like to say that a lot of you have you heads up your asses because of your skepticism. I actually began to get mad at some of you because of how idiotic you have made skeptics out to be. But I dont even want to get back into it, im biting my tounge as we speak.

WOW, That says alot for yourself now doesn't it.

You were figured out from the start. You were even given a challenge to make the skeptics believe you but you failed.

Now coming back to tell us of your true nature really says alot about your characteristics.

I only have one last thing to say! I'm pretty sure you have lost the respect of everyone on this thread,

Skeptics as well as believers alike.

Edited by Dragonwick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah i lied, multiple times in fact. Whats your point lol? It was necessary for the illusion, wouldnt you say? As for being a con, thats a bit unnecessary. I don't see how im a con when I never "conned" anyone out of anything. Id say that I was more of an illusionist/pranskter than anything else, but whatever. You don't have to be so butt-hurt about it, jesus.

As for your checks and balances, or C&B's as you call it (lol), I still stand by my previous statements. They were pointless to improving the credibiliy of the video because each one of those things could have been faked just like everything else. I do believe I've said this many times by now, I was being serious. It would have requird a more complicated illusion, albeit, but it was well within the realm of possibility and "do-ableness". And yet, it really wouldnt have made my video any more credible, objectively speaking. It just would have taken more time and effort, all for a small group of people who most likely wouldnt change their minds anyway. That why I didnt do it. It would have taken too much time and energy for a trivial difference in credibility...which ironically is good enough reason for me to not do it, even if I really had telekinetic powers lol.

To be honest, the only reason was annoyed by you the most was because, like i said said before, i was in a unique position to know just how full of sh** you were, whereas others seemed to be unaware of it. It was taxing to listen to your psuedo-sceince and see other nod in acceptance. Your sceintific explanation were such BS that there is an irony to be found in you calling me a fraud. Now that im able to drop the act, I can say with confidence that you have some nerve playing the role of the "learned sceintist" in this discussion. I was appauled by some of the explanations you had come up with. you either had no idea what you were talking about, or knew you were talking out of your ass but was counting on others not being able to call you out...either way it was more than enough to annoy me, being in the position i was.

And eqqumby, im not saying all skeptics are jerks....im a skeptic. But I do have a problem with the ones who are so skeptical that the are unable to pull their heads out of their asses and see things objectively. Well balanced skeptics, such a KBA and even AI got respect from me, did they not?

The point is that I desinged these videos in such a way as to prevent anyone from knowing anything for sure. And the well-balanced skeptics/believers admitted this. None of them had a death grip on any extreme stance such as "he is for sure the real deal" or "he is for sure a fraud" because there simply was no way to come to those conclusion unless you had fooled yourselves nto thinking otherwise, which many of you did. Those that thought they "knew" i was a fraud, or those who "knew" I was for real were full of sh**, plain and simple. And you JJ, were one of the most flamboyant BSer's of them all. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Dragonwick, i dont really care much for "net respect". Especially not from people such as you. Your up there on the list with Jj.

Edited by mattman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your a low budget jerk. We don't take kindly to liars in these here parts feller...DRAW!

Whatever, your an amateur and proved nothing but that you're too lazy or to stupid to really even do a good trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, lighten up. Whats there to be mad about? Honestly? 75% of you were content with thinking this was a hoax anyway, and now that i have told it you it was, you get all angry?? What the hell is that?

And for the others who thought this was for real, im sorry for making a convincing hoax, but that was the point. These videos are not to be trusted, and anyone who is serious about telekinesis, be it pro-tk or con-tk, needs to be aware of this. Like Jj, im tired of the TK videos...thats why it was a bit entertaining for me. It just a shame that it took so long to get to this point. Orginally it was only supposed to take one video and no more than a few months of it being on the net before i was going to come forward. But things didnt go exactly the way I thought and i had to roll with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt - you are nothing like "me" - even in TK videos.

The BIG difference is I do not have to stoop to lies and con's like you.

See that is where you crossed the line. You were called on it - and you continued your lie and con-job. That is where you should have drawn the line - but you crossed it.

Not that you care and that also concerns a lot of us - is that you do not seem to care that you've distroyed any crediblity that you might of had. No one going to believe one sentence that you type now.

Once a liar always a liar, it really is just that simple. Matt is a 2 bit liar, that is all anyone on this board - Believer and Skeptic sees. Nothing more and a whole lot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious. The skeptics are “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “gullible” because they refused to be duped by a scam after the scammer refused to follow rules he had previously agreed to?

Mattman, you demonstrated the value of being skeptical and showed that your non-victims were right all along. If you had followed your own agreement and repeated the video with the clear table, feather, etc. and they still didn't believe you, you might have something to talk about.

By the way, theism and atheism are profoundly different. Theism looks at the universe, says, "I can't explain all of this" and invents gods.

Atheism looks at the universe and says, "I can't explain all of this".

Theism is a human-invented added layer thrown over observation of the universe. Atheism is the lack of that added layer.

Santaist: "I believe that Santa Clause exists."

Asantaist: "I see no evidence whatsoever of Santa Claus so I have no reason to believe in his existence."

They are NOT the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now youre just trying too hard. No really, that was a honorable speech and all but its blanant you are blowing this all out of proportion, for spite im guessing. But thats alright, im sure im not the only one who isnt dooped by this over-the-top sense of virtue youre putting up. Its just a bit cheesy, the excessive melodrama and all.

Anyway, the whole idea was to create an illusion of a person who can do TK. Thats requires "role playing" or *gasp* dare i say it....lying. And i know what your thinking, "someone lied over the internet?? How could this be????....im so devistated i..i dont think ill ever recover from this"

You know Jj, at least I was aware I was being a phoney, and at least it was temporary. I cant say the same for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is hilarious. The skeptics are “stupid”, “ignorant”, and “gullible” because they refused to be duped by a scam after the scammer refused to follow rules he had previously agreed to?

Mattman, you demonstrated the value of being skeptical and showed that your non-victims were right all along. If you had followed your own agreement and repeated the video with the clear table, feather, etc. and they still didn't believe you, you might have something to talk about.

enough with the strawman fallacy. I clearly wasnt talking about all skeptics, yet you make it seem like I was. I was talking about the "too-skeptical" skeptics, because they are indeed ignorant, gulliblem, and stupid. This is the reason why i made the distinction between them and "well-balanced" and "level-headed" skeptics.

By the way, theism and atheism are profoundly different. Theism looks at the universe, says, "I can't explain all of this" and invents gods.

Atheism looks at the universe and says, "I can't explain all of this".

Theism is a human-invented added layer thrown over observation of the universe. Atheism is the lack of that added layer.

Santaist: "I believe that Santa Clause exists."

Asantaist: "I see no evidence whatsoever of Santa Claus so I have no reason to believe in his existence."

They are NOT the same thing.

fair enough, perhaps it was a bad analogy. But lets clea the air here:

The Theist looks at the universe and says "i cant explain this. I know, it must be the work of a god".

The AGNOSTIC looks that the universe and says "I cant explain this", and leaves it at that.

The Atheist, however, looks at the universe and says "i cant explain this. But whatever did this, its wasnt a god."]

Dont confuse agnosticism and atheism, they are not the same thing. Both realize that there isnt suffient evidence for a God, but only one of the two makes the cardinal mistake of confusing an absence of evidence for evidence of absense. Guess which one?

Edited by mattman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now youre just trying too hard. No really, that was a honorable speech and all but its blanant you are blowing this all out of proportion, for spite im guessing. But thats alright, im sure im not the only one who isnt dooped by this over-the-top sense of virtue youre putting up. Its just a bit cheesy, the excessive melodrama and all.

Anyway, the whole idea was to create an illusion of a person who can do TK. Thats requires "role playing" or *gasp* dare i say it....lying. And i know what your thinking, "someone lied over the internet?? How could this be????....im so devistated i..i dont think ill ever recover from this"

You know Jj, at least I was aware I was being a phoney, and at least it was temporary. I cant say the same for you.

Wow - Matt is a tad puzzled that no one else shares his 'humor' in his con-job. I think it's safe to say you'll find NO ONE that will support you even a little on this one. You simply crossed too many lines: You've made yourself the UM Ultimate Liar. :tu:

But show me one place where I lied, played a con, or presented something other than what I stated. Oh, wait - you can't because I didn't. Unlike you who is now nothing more than a 2-bit liar trying to rationalize and justify his 'con' and no one is buying it -- and you wonder why??? :blink:

See you still hold to the C & B as "moot" - "silly" and so on. Because they can be 'worked around'. Well ya you're right they could be, but they make it MUCH HARDER to pull of a scam.

See your table was already seen as part of the con-job. All the skeptics saw it as part of the job. No one is surprised by that.

But the C&B's makes it much much harder to pull of a scam - and the funny thing is - NO ONE HAS DONE IT! Taken the $300.00 challenge.

Especially when you have to go before a high-school/college teacher as part of the challenge.

As someone already pointed out - you would have better served your con-job if you met what you agreed to. But you didn't. So you have nothing to say to me about "Moot" - because you didn't do it. So until you meet my "moot" C & B's your statement is pure 100% SPECULATION. It is not FACT. Because you have NO FACTS to back it up - it's conjecture, speculation - or as we saw it: The excuse you needed to use your table. That why it was always moot to you - you couldn't pull off your scam without your table. So please - get real.

BOTTOM LINE:

** It was "moot" to you because you found you could NOT pull off your con off other wise.

** You HAD to cut the corners and just like you are now rationalizing your lies to us - you had to rationalize your 'excuse' to by pass the very things YOU AGREED TOO - you couldn't pull it off - so you have to 'rationalize my C&B's' for the plain and simple reason - your con could NOT be pulled off .... It's just that simple.

So now - what lies and rationalizations are going to be in your next post??

Edited by Jjbreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let it go man. Believe me, its not worth dwelling over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.