Quote:
Originally posted by skullfunk
1. I figured more people would have access to the movie than the original game. Chances are better that the movie's game would be accurate than inaccurate.
|
Prove it.
Quote:
|
2. The movie errors that you are talking about are chronological errors. These are supposed to be screened by the producers. The movie error necessitating a mistake in the reproduction of this game would be the domain of a historical consultant, and these guys are much better because mistakes are their profession.
|
Prove it.
Quote:
3. I preferred that someone could obtain the real game. Read my whole statement!
|
I saw your whole statement. My point was that the ONLY way you can prove all the goals happened on one side was by seeing the original game. Watching the movie should not even be considered by someone genuinely interested in ascertaining the truth rather than pushing theories that are, to put it bluntly, full of crap.
Quote:
1. NO conspiracy is proven. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if it weren't so.
|
Bullshit. Watergate was a conspiracy. Watergate was proven.
Quote:
|
The story I heard was plausible, and I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist.
|
If you propose a theory about a conspiracy, you're a conspiracy theorist. Kinda like if you drive a car, you're a motorist.
Quote:
1. Don' give me that shit. A dead coach has nothing to do with anything! The truth is all that matters in a story. And to claim that the group of amateurs beating seasoned professionals doesn't raise skepticism about their success is delusional.
|
First off, no it doesn't raise skepticism unless there was something strange about the events surrounding the game. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to shoot a drug into the arm of a large angry hockey player? Since he didn't kick up a fuss until AFTER the game was over, we can presume that such an event did not occur. After all, if some asshole ran up to you and shot an unknown chemical into your arm just before your next sporting event, wouldn't you think maybe it was something more than a B-12 shot? I would think you would go find a doctor and report it immediately.
Quote:
1. I bet you believe in God.
|
I fail to see your point there, but since you ask, no I do not believe in the god described in the bible.
Quote:
|
2. Most conspiracies are based on circumstancial evidence. This story is as well, since we know that communists governments used drugs to bolster their athletes' abilities. We also know that the USSR and America saw the Olympics as an opportunity to prove their respective superiorities. We also know that a case of cheating or breaking rules occurs practically every Olympics, albeit not as sensational as this example.
|
OK, so the next time I hear some guy say that some guy he knows said he heard it from a distant third cousin twice removed that President Bush is really the female result of a science experiment crossbreeding a chimpanzee with a jackass, it'd be OK for me to go posting it on the internet as a theory that I'm asking others to prove for me? Gimme a break.
Quote:
To finish my retort, I want to repeat that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. That means I don't believe a story until sufficient evidence proves it. You claim to be a conspiracy theorist, so you are admitting that you jump to conclusions about stories without absolute proof of their existence. To want to disprove a story is much more sensible than wanting to prove a story, because most conspiracy theories are false.
|
No, I don't claim to be a conspiracy theorist. I said your post is the kind of thing that gives conspiracy INVESTIGATORS a bad name. I didn't claim to be a conspiracy investigator either. Your reasoning about what I admit is therefore unfounded.
Quote:
I hope I responded to every ridiculous and fallacious statement in your thread, but I'm sure I missed plenty.
|
Well you didn't do a very good job at it because you got most of it wrong. The ridiculous and falacious statement here is your original theory.
(edited for formatting)