micro1:
Re: Your link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymtMUOOTGes
Why does this guy have to start off by insulting those he is trying to persuade? That is NOT a demonstration of a person's intelligence, and whether he's right or wrong, he's doing his cause a disservice.
"This video is for all the imbeciles who believe the Orlando event was real."
That's how he begins. At this point, he's already lost me. Three seconds into the video and he's already called me an imbecile. I'm inclined to believe that he either wants to convert imbeciles to his cause, or he's an imbecile himself. Maybe both.
I'll watch a bit more, but he'd better have some INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence in his video or I'm done with this issue. There's way too much internet crap out there already; I don't need to be spending time listening to someone who operates in an utter absence of class and logic.
"It's obvious their one and only brain cell doesn't operate properly. I'm just going to show you how moronic you are."
Quite a charmer, isn't he? We're now three sentences into the video. Why should I listen any more?
This guy doesn't even understand that if a person receives all of his information from biased sources, he has no reason to NOT believe them. That doesn't make the person an imbecile. It doesn't make him brain damaged. It doesn't make him moronic.
Intelligent people form their opinions based upon the evidence they have. If they draw the wrong conclusion, it COULD be because they're an imbecile, brain damaged or moronic. It could also be that they've been fed incorrect information. The latter is not a reason to disparage their intelligence.
But this guy doesn't understand that... which means that HE is the one who's on the left side of the bell curve.
Eight minutes into the video, and he's done a lot of playing around with Google Earth and tossed in a few more insults. The only argument I've heard from him is that there's no way that the wounded would be carried 250 yards and that those administering the aid wouldn't then return to Pulse. "No friggin' way" is how he puts it. Uh, I don't agree. The police probably have an area that size cordoned off either due to the risk or due to the importance of not disrupting a major crime scene . It does no good to leave the wounded inside an area that ambulances can't enter. Also, this may be a designated triage location, where the less seriously injured can be treated while awaiting an ambulance.
"That video was filmed while those idiots were here."
Sorry, I just have a real problem with an anti-conspiracy NUT who has such obvious disdain for those with other beliefs. Is this not PRECISELY what he accuses the other side of doing?
"It's clear as day that they gathered here and started their bulls**t bloody carrying injured down towards the Pulse."
Ahh. So more than NINE MINUTES into the video, he finally says what his evidence is that the whole thing is faked. I think he's saying that wounded were carried TOWARD the Pulse not away. Is that right? I'm still not sure. He sure doesn't like to get to the point.
"So we've seen that all those idiots gathered at the Pulse side of the street, so why in hell did they cross over and walk on the other side when they're 250 yards away from Pulse? There's no reason whatsoever that these idiots would have to cross the street and do this acting here [showing several people carrying a victim] with a camera strategically placed."
At 10 minutes, his issue is that those who assisted the wounded crossed the street as they walked to the Pulse from the triage area.
I find this argument to be SO weak. A camera strategically placed? Uh, knowing where to be is the job of professional cameramen. They do their best to get interesting footage. The narrator evidently doesn't think they could manage to get footage of victims being carried.
I disagree!
He then says that there is no footage of cameramen on the Pulse side of the street - implying that the whole reason for carrying the victim on the non-Pulse side of the street is because that's where the cameraman has been strategically placed.
Sorry. This is conjecture, not evidence. MAYBE the police stated that they wanted to keep the Pulse side of the street cleared for people LEAVING Pulse. It could be as simple as that.
"So that was the final nail in the coffin."
Wow. That is SO weak.
Tell me: If you were the police, wouldn't it be a good idea to cordon off an area around a terrorism site and not allow ANY unauthorized people to walk into it? So, that leaves people who are outside of the police line having to walk on the other side of the street.
That's MY conjecture, and I'd say it's at least as valid as his.
I get very interested in conspiracy theories when I CAN'T come up with reasonable explanations for what's been observed. But when I can do so instantly? I'm inclined to side with the tried and true: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Jumping to the conclusion that the Pulse Shooting was a government hoax takes WAY more evidence than mere footage of victims being carried on one side of the street instead of the other.
But for this guy, it's the final nail in the coffin.
I guess some of us just require more convincing than that.
| 
