Again, we are talking about something to be treated as valid EVIDENCE. How do you know how much "research" he put into the videos? How do you trust that that "research" isn't just confirmation bias? How do you know that the he hasn't been misled by faulty sources? Have you gone through every point of his videos and analyzed the validity each of his claims?
My point is, just because you can opine about your subjective theories for 10 videos, doesn't mean it is true. I could make a 10-part series with "research" about how mice are attempting to take over the world. It doesn't mean anything without actual hard evidence, which his videos do not have.
And you’ve proven my point. Unable to produce any research and data attached to video you did in your underwear by this afternoon. I don’t even need to respond further.
No, the problem is you stated your little BS statement of how great you are at presenting info, Intel, data, stories, probabilities, or evidence and can do do in 1 fucking afternoon in your underwear! All up against Fall of the Cabal, also while ripping down a person whom you did not know, know shit about, and called the well thought out or “crafted” info he/she gave by your shit standards! That’s exactly what you did. Do I need to quote your statements? I can pull them up even though they’re deleted. The point I’m trying to make to you, is on a forum like this, when a person pops up with Intel, and several Mods and Contributors give thanks, but you don’t read those comments, but shit on the Intel, it proves you aren’t doing Jack for research yourself, and you’re not capable of laying out solid info like what was presented. You can be all grumpy I called you out, but I did and too bad. You want to talk shit that you can present, then present! Or quit talking shit period. You got called out. Take it like a man and own up you can’t back it or you would’ve done it already instead of giving 2 responses of excuses in the last 48 hours, vs that single afternoon in your underwear BS statement.
You can look at my comments, I didn't delete anything.
You misunderstood me. My argument wasn't that I could make a better video, or that FoTC didn't take time and effort... but that anyone (i.e. some random nobody) could narrate over stock footage and claim to have the "answers," and 90% of the people here would believe it. What I implied to OP was: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a giant list of theories with zero evidence is nothing new (like FoTC).
Again, we are talking about something to be treated as valid EVIDENCE. How do you know how much "research" he put into the videos? How do you trust that that "research" isn't just confirmation bias? How do you know that the he hasn't been misled by faulty sources? Have you gone through every point of his videos and analyzed the validity each of his claims?
My point is, just because you can opine about your subjective theories for 10 videos, doesn't mean it is true. I could make a 10-part series with "research" about how mice are attempting to take over the world. It doesn't mean anything without actual hard evidence, which his videos do not have.
And you’ve proven my point. Unable to produce any research and data attached to video you did in your underwear by this afternoon. I don’t even need to respond further.
So if I made a video based on nothing at all, you would believe it because I said I did my research? That's all you need to hear to believe something?
For example, you trust a FoTC video simply because a random friend of yours believed it and told you to watch it. That's all it takes to convince you.
The reality is: none of that is evidence, or even research, it's just opinions from people like you and me.
No, the problem is you stated your little BS statement of how great you are at presenting info, Intel, data, stories, probabilities, or evidence and can do do in 1 fucking afternoon in your underwear! All up against Fall of the Cabal, also while ripping down a person whom you did not know, know shit about, and called the well thought out or “crafted” info he/she gave by your shit standards! That’s exactly what you did. Do I need to quote your statements? I can pull them up even though they’re deleted. The point I’m trying to make to you, is on a forum like this, when a person pops up with Intel, and several Mods and Contributors give thanks, but you don’t read those comments, but shit on the Intel, it proves you aren’t doing Jack for research yourself, and you’re not capable of laying out solid info like what was presented. You can be all grumpy I called you out, but I did and too bad. You want to talk shit that you can present, then present! Or quit talking shit period. You got called out. Take it like a man and own up you can’t back it or you would’ve done it already instead of giving 2 responses of excuses in the last 48 hours, vs that single afternoon in your underwear BS statement.
You can look at my comments, I didn't delete anything.
You misunderstood me. My argument wasn't that I could make a better video, or that FoTC didn't take time and effort... but that anyone (i.e. some random nobody) could narrate over stock footage and claim to have the "answers," and 90% of the people here would believe it. What I implied to OP was: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a giant list of theories with zero evidence is nothing new (like FoTC).