Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hunter Biden's Laptop [Merged]


and-then

Recommended Posts

On 3/27/2022 at 1:06 AM, Golden Duck said:

Actually there was doubt about the signature.  I've read an FBI expert says it's authentic; but, layman analysis indicates it might not have been accepted for a mail in ballot.

So the expert analysis from FBI say it's authentic. But a layman (presumably you know the definition of "layman" precludes expertise) says it might not have passed muster in a mail-in ballot. No citation for who this layman is who made this laymans assertion, nor is there an indication of whether this is a prevailing layman opinion that most layman who man polling stations would agree, or whether it's 1-2 out of a 1000 layman would question it (or somewhere between these two extremes)..... in short there is so much wrong with this one paragraph I really have no idea where to begin in addressing it. 

Is this what we are using as "evidence" these days? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So the expert analysis from FBI say it's authentic. But a layman (presumably you know the definition of "layman" precludes expertise) says it might not have passed muster in a mail-in ballot. No citation for who this layman is who made this laymans assertion, nor is there an indication of whether this is a prevailing layman opinion that most layman who man polling stations would agree, or whether it's 1-2 out of a 1000 layman would question it (or somewhere between these two extremes)..... in short there is so much wrong with this one paragraph I really have no idea where to begin in addressing it. 

Is this what we are using as "evidence" these days? 

 

Do you think an expert would be manning a polling station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I am curious what your opinions are about "Catch and Kill" practices like what was used by American Media to shield Trump regarding stories like Karen McDougal: 'Catch and kill': How a tabloid shields Trump from troublesome stories (cnn.com) 

 

The principle of "catch and kill" (buying rights to a story so as to bury it) is a horrible practice. 

Is that the question you are asking? Or are you asking me what I think of that specific instance? I honestly don't know enough about that situation to make a comment, CNN isn't the first place I'd turn to in order to find out about this in greater detail, so there is that. 

Also, National Enquirer doesn't exactly have a quality trust score, with sensationalist and misleading material frequently popping up. They are not top of my list for trustworthy sources. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Do you think an expert would be manning a polling station?

No. But we're not talking about a polling booth, we're talking about a repair shop in Delawere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Well. In your opinion, at least.

Slightly surprised you're willing to pay a subscription for a publication that you believe is "a joke, it is an untrustworthy source that is consistently found to be lying."

It's helpful to be able to see what the left is saying. I began my subscription about six months ago when a lawyer I watched said that they were interviewed and featured on page 1 of NYT (which was a subscriber article). Since then, I've been too lazy to unsubscribe, and it does help me see what the left is saying.

 

22 hours ago, Tiggs said:

So — are we done here, or do you fancy a few more rounds?

As long as you're ok believing a conspiracy theory, there's nothing more to discuss. People who believe 9/11 was an inside job also think they are justified in their beliefs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Free speech does not mean true speech. Anyone with a microphone and YouTube channel can talk about anything they want.  There is no requirement they offer any truth.  It is entertainment, that is all you can say about it .  They don't have to provide sources or provenance or any evidence of research, just a statement.  The value of the NYT or any media source is the ability to do research and maintain a chain of sources and evidence that can be cross examined by the final reader.  The reputation for accuracy  must be established and maintained constantly or it loses value.  

I won't say if NYT does, but the average YouTube channel certainly does not meet that standard.

This is where you are wrong. Most of the YouTube channels I watch for information include a "links in description" section. Consider the YouTuber known as Actual Justice Warrior. Every single video he puts out he includes all supporting material and research he conducted in making that video. For example, this is his most recent video, uploaded only 3 hours ago (I haven't watched it yet, but I already know the sources he used, because he cites all his sources): 

Scrolling down to the video description you'll note that in this case, AJW has included the following sources (following quoted from that YouTube page):

Full Debate: https://youtu.be/nPss2z6ua1Y
Lia Thomas Numbers:
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com...
My Original Lia Thomas Video:
https://youtu.be/1zn5ExoSOLU

And "My Original Lia Thomas" video includes a bunch more links that he used to support that video, which is when he first uploaded and researched the topic: 

Savanah Interview 1: https://www.instagram.com/p/CbOTdBbvsnn/
Savanah Interview 2:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cba7GImO6My/
NCAA Decisions:
https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/...
NCAA Rules:
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/ncaa-ru...
T Levels:
https://www.mountsinai.org/health-lib...
Runner DQ'd For T Level:
https://www.axios.com/namibia-disqual...
Lia Record:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/07/upenn-t...
NCAA Swimmer:
https://nypost.com/2022/03/20/ncaa-sw...
Vaush Tweet:
https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-y...

Those support links are better than anything NYT has ever provided in their source lists. 

Another favourite channel is "Don't Walk, Run! Productions", though he doesn't provide "sources in description". He does, however, verbally state every source he uses within his videos, and though this is more annoying than AJW, if you want you can find any source he references pretty easily. And he analyses the data in far more detail than the media ever does. 

But I do agree with you that in general, there are a lot of dodgy sources out there too. But at least with YouTube I know I'm likely to find truth sometimes, I don't feel that I get any truth from NYT. 

I've never seen NYT be so generous on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You forgot to add that the question I didn't bother to answer is something off-topic.  Based on what I'm aware of in both Maddow's/Tucker's cases, 'her and his lawyers wouldn't argue that she or he was trustworthy' is true, unless you can find a quote where they did.  It's a factual statement, like you I won't try to make excuses or falsely accuse others of misrepresenting what the lawyers said.

Technically the very topic of Fox News and Tucker Carlson is off topic too, it didn't stop you talking about it a few posts ago when you thought you could use it against me. You seemed very reluctant to answer a basic question. But thank you for doing so. I accept that your views are consistent. I still think you are wrong (Maddow's lawyers did not argue that she was untrustworthy, neither did Carlson's lawyers), but you are consistent. 

 

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Now, I'm not going to bother asking you the same question a third time.  I'll just point out how ridiculous and hypocritical it is for someone who is so outraged at the media 'lying' so freely engages in the same thing. And like much of biased right-wing media, you don't seem to care about correcting it or backing it up.  It's especially loony on this specific topic when you complain about the media lying to 'us', when on this topic lying to you doesn't matter at all since you couldn't even vote in our election. 

My ability to vote in your election is irrelevant to my commentary.

 

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

See, English is a wonderfully rich language where it is possible to say something multiple ways so exact quotations are not necessary, we have things like 'synonyms' which are very handy, but I guess I would want to try to distract and switch the topic too though.  Unlike you I try to be an honest arguer though, so go ahead and do your zany word-lawyering on your quote from earlier this month, "What does it even mean to be "left wing" or "right wing"?  I've personally been called "far right" by people from this forum, though I do not see myself anywhere close to that.", and argue how that's a misrepresentation in your mind.  Yes I guess you can hair-split and say that you do actually 'understand' why people think you're far right, though you didn't say that, and just don't 'see' yourself as that, but I'm satisfied that my quote is close enough and far closer to what you said than your lies about what I did not say, so I should be well within your allowable boundaries.  But you seem to be struggling with what 'conclusion' even means so I doubt you'd agree.

It's not hairsplitting! It's bloody obvious - saying "I don't see myself as far right" is NOT the same as saying "I don't understand why people see me as right wing". One accurately reflects who I am, the other makes me look like a clueless numpty! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Their going to put fingers in their ears and scream "Russia, Russia, Russia...", as loud as they can. 

Its all made up... The guys a liar... Russians... Hunter was in Ukraine at the time... Rudi is a crook...

And so on....

LOL, read the interview.  Please.  That is the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.  And is the picture in the interview the guy?  What's with the little poof on top of his beret?  And the 80's sweater over the button up shirt?  Hilarious!  Also...they're...not their.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As long as you're ok believing a conspiracy theory, there's nothing more to discuss.

I'm perfectly okay with believing that a conspiracy theory currently being investigated by the FBI is viable.

As long as you're willing to concede that the NYT hasn't confirmed your version of events.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

No. But we're not talking about a polling booth, we're talking about a repair shop in Delawere. 

Delawhere?

Anyway, you revisited the the opinions on the signature to stir yourself up.

I stated an FBI expert advicated the authenticity before you did, butbyou still want to be adversarial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The principle of "catch and kill" (buying rights to a story so as to bury it) is a horrible practice. 

Is that the question you are asking? Or are you asking me what I think of that specific instance? I honestly don't know enough about that situation to make a comment, CNN isn't the first place I'd turn to in order to find out about this in greater detail, so there is that. 

Also, National Enquirer doesn't exactly have a quality trust score, with sensationalist and misleading material frequently popping up. They are not top of my list for trustworthy sources. 

Oh, I was asking in relation to this topic.  Earlier you implied that manipulation of the media to control stories was a practice exclusive to the left and something that is an exception instead of what is commonly happening.   "Catch and Kill" has been going on for years and has been used by both parties and the rich.  

I would hold credence to laptop story if an agent (Guiliani) of an individual known for his non-disclosure agreements and use of "Catch and Kill" wasn't involved.  It's bizarreness, the timing, and the involvement of Trump's agents makes me think it is just another media manipulation for political gain.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Technically the very topic of Fox News and Tucker Carlson is off topic too, it didn't stop you talking about it a few posts ago when you thought you could use it against me. You seemed very reluctant to answer a basic question. But thank you for doing so. I accept that your views are consistent. I still think you are wrong (Maddow's lawyers did not argue that she was untrustworthy, neither did Carlson's lawyers), but you are consistent. 

 

My ability to vote in your election is irrelevant to my commentary.

 

It's not hairsplitting! It's bloody obvious - saying "I don't see myself as far right" is NOT the same as saying "I don't understand why people see me as right wing". One accurately reflects who I am, the other makes me look like a clueless numpty! 

How might you label someone who resort to simplistic identity politics  and only ever uses "The Left" in a perjorative sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Delawhere?

Anyway, you revisited the the opinions on the signature to stir yourself up.

I stated an FBI expert advicated the authenticity before you did, butbyou still want to be adversarial.

I must have missed your post where you "advocated the authenticity" of the signature. I was replying to your post in which you claimed a layman opinion to somehow be a valid reason to dismiss the signature. I still don't know if this hypothetical layperson represents 1-in-1000 poll workers or 1-in-3 poll workers, or why this hypothetical layperson's opinion is relevant to whether Hunter signed a document in a Delawere repair shop. If you interpret that as "adversarial" then so be it. 

 

29 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How might you label someone who resort to simplistic identity politics  and only ever uses "The Left" in a perjorative sense?

I don't know, I'd need more information about this hypothetical somebody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I must have missed your post where you "advocated the authenticity" of the signature. I was replying to your post in which you claimed a layman opinion to somehow be a valid reason to dismiss the signature. I still don't know if this hypothetical layperson represents 1-in-1000 poll workers or 1-in-3 poll workers, or why this hypothetical layperson's opinion is relevant to whether Hunter signed a document in a Delawere repair shop. If you interpret that as "adversarial" then so be it. 

 

I don't know, I'd need more information about this hypothetical somebody. 

You missed it because I never said it.  I mentioned the FBI expert before you did.

Who puts value in the opinions of lay-people?  You don't.   Why are you stuck on arguing about something you don't care about.

Quote me where I said the opinions of lay-people make a valid reason to dismiss the signature.

So you need a Tim-Tam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, I was asking in relation to this topic.  Earlier you implied that manipulation of the media to control stories was a practice exclusive to the left and something that is an exception instead of what is commonly happening.   "Catch and Kill" has been going on for years and has been used by both parties and the rich.  

I would hold credence to laptop story if an agent (Guiliani) of an individual known for his non-disclosure agreements and use of "Catch and Kill" wasn't involved.  It's bizarreness, the timing, and the involvement of Trump's agents makes me think it is just another media manipulation for political gain.

I am applying my comments to all media. However, many people already dismiss right wing sources as biased and untrustworthy (a significantly higher portion of the public distrusts Fox News more than any other mainstream news outlet - and the data I saw didn't elaborate on the less mainstream right wing sources that even fewer people accept [eg, Breitbart, Daily Wire, National Enquirer, OAN ] - but I doubt they would have a higher national trust score or a lower national distrust score than Fox). Which means that by default, right wing sources are already questioned and dismissed as a matter of habit, far more than left wing sources are. Hence my discussions tend to focus on "left wing" sources, because those sources are often touted as impartial bastions of truth, when they simply are not. This NYT article is evidence of precisely what I am saying. 

As I said, I don't know enough about that particular CNN story that you quoted in order to make a judgement on it. Hence the reason I addressed the concept of "Catch and Kill" without contextualising it to a specific event that may or may not be a misrepresentation from CNN's propaganda division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You missed it because I never said it.  I mentioned the FBI expert before you did.

Who puts value in the opinions of lay-people?  You don't.   Why are you stuck on arguing about something you don't care about.

Quote me where I said the opinions of lay-people make a valid reason to dismiss the signature.

So you need a Tim-Tam?

To quote your post: 

  

On 3/27/2022 at 1:06 AM, Golden Duck said:

Actually there was doubt about the signatureI've read an FBI expert says it's authentic; but, layman analysis indicates it might not have been accepted for a mail in ballot.

there was doubt about the signature - admitting doubt about a signature.

I've read an FBI expert says it's authentic - One side of the story

but - there is a "but", because obviously there is an alternative view, which states:

layman analysis indicates it might not have been accepted for a mail in ballot - offering an alternative involving layman opinions, suggesting that this alternative is an equally valid approach to the signature.

 

If I'm missing something, by all means elaborate. Because otherwise, a plain reading of the text you wrote suggests that you used the layman opinion on the signature as a relevant reason to dismiss the account.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 and the data I saw didn't elaborate on the less mainstream right wing sources that even fewer people accept [eg, Breitbart, Daily Wire, National Enquirer, OAN ]

That's hilarious that just a few days ago you claimed to have never heard of OAN...and now you are using it to bolster your opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

I'm perfectly okay with believing that a conspiracy theory currently being investigated by the FBI is viable.

As long as you're willing to concede that the NYT hasn't confirmed your version of events.
 

That's not what I said. But since I'm not going to concede that the NYT has not confirmed the story, that makes us even. Best wishes, Tiggs :tu: 

~ Regards, PA

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

That's hilarious that just a few days ago you claimed to have never heard of OAN...and now you are using it to bolster your opinion...

I said I had never heard of DirecTV. OAN, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. I haven't really seen much from them, but I know they exist and I know they are a right wing news source of questionable quality. 

Edit: just to quote myself, for posterity:

  

On 3/24/2022 at 1:27 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I'd legit never heard of DirecTV either. so I guess that makes us even. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I said I had never heard of DirecTV. OAN, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. 

Ahh ok, so tell us about OAN?  Is it trustworthy?  And really, what I gather from your previous posts is that since the majority deem a certain source untrustworthy, it's the most trustworthy?  Can you elaborate on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Ahh ok, so tell us about OAN?  Is it trustworthy?  And really, what I gather from your previous posts is that since the majority deem a certain source untrustworthy, it's the most trustworthy?  Can you elaborate on that?

I haven't really seen much of it, so I have no opinion on it. I certainly don't think they are default "the most trustworthy", this is a unique interpretation that only you hold about me. If you re-read my post, you'll get an idea of why I cited their news source, I'm not going to repeat myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I haven't really seen much of it, so I have no opinion on it. I certainly don't think they are default "the most trustworthy", this is a unique interpretation that only hold about me. If you re-read my post, you'll get an idea of why I cited their news source, I'm not going to repeat myself. 

You cited it because people don't deem it trustworthy, along with other news sources, and saying that is a problem of the people, and not the source.  You are basically saying you trust them more because the majority trust them less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Agent0range said:

You cited it because people don't deem it trustworthy, along with other news sources, and saying that is a problem of the people, and not the source.  You are basically saying you trust them more because the majority trust them less.

That is not what I said. I said that there is already a distrust in the community for right wing sources, but that same distrust does not exist for left-wing sources. Therefore I think it's a fair line of argument to refer to biased left-wing media and point out that they are not centrists providing balanced views. And the difference in expectations of left-wing vs right-wing media sites provides enough reason as to why I don't constantly post about "biased right wing media" in the same breath as I talk about the lying liars on the left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That is not what I said. I said that there is already a distrust in the community for right wing sources, but that same distrust does not exist for left-wing sources. Therefore I think it's a fair line of argument to refer to biased left-wing media and point out that they are not centrists providing balanced views. And the difference in expectations of left-wing vs right-wing media sites provides enough reason as to why I don't constantly post about "biased right wing media" in the same breath as I talk about the lying liars on the left. 

You're full of it.  This community is by majority, right wing.  And any gripe you have about left wing media, you can double with right wing media.  You wouldn't know that though, being in Australia, and being oh so sheltered from the amazing right wing media we have here in the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.