T1B

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:31 am But that Veritas video is, imo, fake.

So Walker drops off the face of the earth, his digital footprint is erased and Pfizer feels compelled to issue a non-denial denial over a "fake" video.

Try again.

Can you demonstrate that the person we saw in that video ("Walker") worked for Pfizer?

Wouldn't that have been Pfizer's first and most simple line of defense?

:"Hey! Who is this guy? Never heard of him. This person doesn't even exist!"

Press down on the clutch and ease your brain into gear..

Maybe they don’t give a shit. Wonder why that might be? You might first want to drop an engine under your empty hood before you start worrying about transmissions.

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:42 am Wouldn't that have been Pfizer's first and most simple line of defense?

:"Hey! Who is this guy? Never heard of him. This person doesn't even exist!"

Press down on the clutch and ease your brain into gear..

I asked if you can demonstrate that "Walker" worked for Pfizer.

For the record, you did not demonstrate that he did.

It might seem that he did, perhaps.
And maybe he did.
I don't rule that out.


I could take this further, and go in other directions regarding this video, but for now, let's just agree that it has not (yet?) been conclusively shown that the guy in the video worked for Pfizer.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:35 am I asked if you can demonstrate that "Walker" worked for Pfizer.

For the record, you did not demonstrate that he did.

It might seem that he did, perhaps.
And maybe he did.
I don't rule that out.


I could take this further, and go in other directions regarding this video, but for now, let's just agree that it has not (yet?) been conclusively shown that the guy in the video worked for Pfizer.

The conspiracy is more valuable to the Qtards than the troof.

And the truth is?

Truth has nothing to do with it.

GQP lives on confirmation bias, and immediatly rejects anything contrary to their myopia.

JQPGettysburp.

Meat Head wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:15 pm Truth has nothing to do with it.

GQP lives on confirmation bias, and immediatly rejects anything contrary to their myopia.

JQPGettysburp.

It’s exhausting.

Cops, DAs, and Judges are the same. Which is dangerous and scary as well as exhausting.

IKYABWAI

Outstanding!!!

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:35 am

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:42 am Wouldn't that have been Pfizer's first and most simple line of defense?

:"Hey! Who is this guy? Never heard of him. This person doesn't even exist!"

Press down on the clutch and ease your brain into gear..

I asked if you can demonstrate that "Walker" worked for Pfizer.

For the record, you did not demonstrate that he did.

It might seem that he did, perhaps.
And maybe he did.
I don't rule that out.


I could take this further, and go in other directions regarding this video, but for now, let's just agree that it has not (yet?) been conclusively shown that the guy in the video worked for Pfizer.

Sloppy, this tactic is absurd, and no surpise borrows heavily from your "flat earth" logic stream. This Veritas vid, like all of them, is real. Why would you think that Veritas would risk whatever credibility they've strived to achieve with some fake and staged concealed video? Are you kidding? Do you suppose they really don't care--and just want the thrill of going viral? And why would Pfizer go into full scour and bleach mode? And what of the actual admission by Pfizer as to "limited cases" of altering the Covid virus?

You can take the first step here and demonstrate that the guy in the video ("Walker") worked for Pfizer.

If you do that, we can take the next step with this.



Save your blather.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:37 am You can take the first step here and demonstrate that the guy in the video ("Walker") worked for Pfizer.

You are, presumably, familiar with the concept of circumstantial evidence?

mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:15 am You are, presumably, familiar with the concept of circumstantial evidence?

One more time

Meat Head wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:15 pm Truth has nothing to do with it.

GQP lives on confirmation bias, and immediatly rejects anything contrary to their myopia.

JQPGettysburp.

@ pedokkkal- Tell us you have no idea what that means without actually telling us.

If dude says: “I work at XYZ corp.” that is direct evidence he works there. The weigh will be determined by the finder of fact, but it’s not circumstantial. Same with, “I make superbugs at work.”

If dude says: “I saw so and so walk into XYZ corp everyday at 8 and leave at 5 for a month.” That is circumstantial evidence so and so works at XYZ corp. Again FoF decides the weight.

“I saw Defendant shoot Vic.” Direct
“I saw Defendant standing over Vic with a literal smoking gun one second after hearing a shot from the alley and walking around the corner.” Circumstantial.

So ends my TED talk for the day.

mvscal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:15 am

poptart wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:37 am You can take the first step here and demonstrate that the guy in the video ("Walker") worked for Pfizer.

You are, presumably, familiar with the concept of circumstantial evidence?

1. You are assuming Project Veritas is not lying.

2. You are assuming that if the guy in the video, "Walker," was not Pfizer's employee, Pfizer would have adamantly insisted that he was not.

I am not interested in assumptions.
I am interested in facts.
I want it verified as a fact that Walker was a Pfizer employee.

Project Veritas could be lying.
Pfizer not adamantly insisting that "Walker" was not their employee doesn't necessarily prove that he was.

It might be true that the guy, "Walker," was a Pfizer employee, but then again it might not be true.

I am just not hanging my hat on assumptions.


The video is presented as a drama.

No, the queer here is the only drama. In the other Veritas vids the outted Marxist assholes immediately clam up.

That said, you're not making the plain argument that if this caricature of uber-queer immediately insists that it's just normal for men to lie on dates--and that he was just lying--well why shoud he be trusted? Notice he didn't deny being an employee of Pfizer. And Pfizer has not denied this either.

Who's shitting his pants now? O'Queef, that's who.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02 ... leave.html