As pointed with the Rembrandt example, that is meaningless evidence.
Again, as you miss it: you can get a real Rembrandt on a picture and any armchair detective can verify it, but it is meaningless unless the picture taker is willing to declare where that picture was taken and if the picture actually shows a changed status (if there is no frame and the edges look torn in the picture showing the real Rembrandt, then together with the testimony of the picture taker, that is plenty of evidence for real detectives to get a warrant).
And it seems that you will not finish until you get a picture showing that water is wet.
Showing pictures of the real Rembrandt is equally meaningless unless there is direct testimony together with the original pictures and sources pointing at the one related to the crime.
Again, show us the original pictures and the testimony of the original picture takers, about the alleged brother being married to Omar, showing pictures from Facebook does not cut it.
That’s a perfectly fair position as regards a private citizen. But Omar is not only a public figure but a public servant, and when her mainstream hometown newspaper asks these questions, she should answer them. If she doesn’t, she creates the impression that she is hiding things and stonewalling. That’s just the way it is. There are a lot of people who will read something like that and think she seems to be acting guilty, whereas if she did answer the questions and allow her family members to be interviewed and there was “no there there”, the same Strib readers would come to the conclusion that the people still insisting on some kind of conspiracy were full of crap and should be ignored.
You seem to want to stubbornly insist that it would make no difference because everyone has already made up their minds, and I think that is quite clearly wrong.
You guys think this is just like birtherism and the demand for Obama to release his long form birth certificate? Then Gallup flatly disproves the notion that giving into such demands doesn’t change anything:
Right before he released his long form birth certificate, 56 percent of Americans believed he was definitely or probably born in this country, and 24 percent believed he was definitely or probably born outside the country—a spread of 32 points. Just a couple weeks later after he released it, that spread had expanded to 52 points.
And if anything, that kind of comparison underestimates the impact. In reality, there were clearly a large number of people who were going to say he was born outside the country as a proxy for just hating him no matter what evidence came in. And there was also a large contingent who were going to stand by him regardless. So among the persuadables in the middle, where elections are decided, the impact was enormous—and it’s really an open question as to whether he could have beaten Romney without doing this. (It’s clear that Axelrod and Obama did not believe he could.)
Well the crime of being stupid as you demonstrated there.
Read it again for the evidence of your dumbness: nowhere I did say that that is not her father, only that you are trying to childishly point at your “powers of deduction” like demanding your candy award. So I did say that indeed: you just showed that water is wet there. And I can post more sources of Jesus at the sea of Galilee" from Rembrandt and they would be meaningless like the pictures of the father of Omar because they do not point to any crime or malfeasance, hence the point that you need to show us the original pictures and testimony from the picture takers about the issue at hand, and not a stupid distraction.
If you ever bother to get to the point: to show us the original sources of the stupid accusation against Omar, together with testimony from the original picture takers with the context of the pictures I would had been impressed, but instead you decided to show that you prefer to think that others are not paying attention to your red herrings.
I was responding to “Nope, because they are not coming from direct evidence nor direct testimony.”
I just gave you an example of the sorts of sources that I looked at. You appear to agree with me, based on those sources, that we have successfully identified Omar’s dad.
Which is it? You can’t claim that I couldn’t have possibly independently verified anything at the same time as saying that yes, clearly, that’s Omar’s dad.
I made no specific accusation against Omar and I just told you on the previous page that I didn’t use any pictures that couldn’t be independently verified. If you want someone to defend the brother marriage thing, ask SlackerInc or someone.
[Spock] Captain, the density anomaly is stronger here![/S]
That is because others indeed can confirm and testify about that fact, the ones that anonymously posted the Omar conspiracy, with images that can not be examined, nor a way to examine the original picture takers or to obtain testimony from them; leads one to conclude that no, you don’t know about the proper way to check for evidence.
And as pointed before, an argument based on anonymous evidence and non vetted sources, as worthless as a picture of a real Rembrandt posted on the internet from an anonymous would be “hero” that claims to expose a wealthy thief of the painting by posting evidence anonymously and then does not come forward to report when the picture was taken, nor to point at the original picture takers that can provide context.
That actually leads to a better argument: Most would dismiss that kind of malarkey, but you swallow the trolls bait, hook line and sinker.
Quote from me, post 447: “My [position] is based on things that I was able to independently verify. I stated what those things were. Everyone is free to repeat what I did and they will find the things that I said are there, assuming that they have not been deleted.”
So…the ones that I’ve just told you several times that I’m not using in any way?
Repeating that water is wet does not help you look smart. I actually did check the “water” you pointed at by looking at other news reports that identified the father.
With obvious dumb results. Again, you are attempting to tell others that you are not using those, so who* are you using then regarding the stupid Omar accusation?
And by who, I’m talking about what I pointed many times before, the original images with direct testimony from the ones that took the pictures with the context and when the pictures where taken.
You just spent two pages telling me that I was using bad evidence at the same time as also explicitly stating that you refused to read one research piece that I did because I didn’t insult someone that you hate with your preferred insult. You don’t know what evidence I used, what conclusion I came to, nor what my position on the topic is but came in assuming that you did.
That would have been a good question to have asked at the start of the conversation. (When you weren’t posting drunk.)
pifle, using logic it is clear that you do not have a source that even approaches to what I told you regarding the stupid accusations against Omar. So you cowardly had to resort to the easiest and lamest example in your sorry deductive tool kit.
Nope, I demonstrated that you did a lousy work and I’m not going to take out the hook that you have in your mouth there.
Point being that, there are others out there that deserve the scorn you show there, but as usual, the ones being trolled do hate more the ones that point at the error of their ways and not the ones that trolled them in the first place.
The Star Tribune could not find records in Minnesota showing that the two ever married, this is not evidence of that either. So, as pointed before, you are really not trying. And that hook in your mouth really does not look better.
She has not faced voters since the publication of the Strib article I posted. Still, she is probably safe because the district is so overwhelmingly Democratic. But that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean it doesn’t matter. Her predecessor in that congressional seat, Keith Ellison, who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, won a statewide race (att’y general) last fall, even after he faced accusations of being a domestic abuser. Omar is charismatic and might have had some possibility of following in his footsteps—but with this article and her failure to respond, I think it’s safe to say that dream is dead. Thankfully.
GIGObuster: Are you not aware that conspiracy theorists do not argue honestly. They are far too invested in their pretense of intellect. Look at those two whom you’re trying to enlighten. Totally incapable of admitting that they’ve been swindled, and are now trying to swindle others.
I Know, but I also learn too about this subject and it is a pleasure to show others the hooks that the trolled accumulate. I do think that conspiracy theorists are either dumb or willful deceivers and sometimes I’m curious about what kind they are when they pop up.
“They’re all fools gentlemen, but the question remains - what KIND of fools are they?” - Gary Larson.
