Winston whips the Australian Skeptics in debate!

[Winston]

Guess what all? Last night, I had a series of debates with many pseudoskeptics on the Australian Skeptics group on Facebook. I brought out the big guns and totally wasted them. They were overwhelmed by truth, logic, facts, reason, etc. to the point where they started grasping at straws. They started playing semantics when the truth wasn't on their side, and used cheap low ball tactics.

At one point, they even DENIED that the 2000 architects and engineers existed on AE911Truth.org! LOL. When I pointed out that those architects and engineers signed a formal petition with their full names, and even appeared on two documentaries produced by AE911Truth.org, they then demanded that I show NOTARIZED statements from these 2000 architects and engineers! Is that a cheap lowball denial tactic or what? LOL. I couldn't believe it. It's sad that these folks are not just closed minded and narrow, but they resort to extreme denial, fraud and dishonesty as well. This can only mean that they are NOT interested in seeking the truth at all.

Anyway, you can see my debates with them here under three posts I started. They might have been driven down by newer posts though.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SkepticsInAustralia/

But I totally blew them away. They were overwhelmed that I threw so much irrefutable evidence at them. All they could do was mindlessly spout "There is no evidence! There is no evidence!" like brainless automatons, as usual. LOL. These pseudoskeptics are like programmed robots, not even human. LOL

I'm going to issue a challenge to them. I would be willing to debate some of them on a skeptics radio podcast, such as The Skeptics Guide to the Universe with Steven Novella, if they can arrange it with him.

I will post this thread on their Facebook group too, to rattle them up. LOL

These folks are funny and predictable, and the funny thing is, they think I'm funny and hilarious as well. LOL I guess that's the only thing we have in common. LOL

[Winston]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)

So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

[HouseMD]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)

So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

Find an expert to debate. I'm really not qualified, as my depth of knowledge of conspiracies is mostly limited to thorough analysis by experts that seems far more logical, scientifically plausible, and concise than that of what comes out of the conspiracist side. You and me arguing would just be a pseudoconspiricist-pseudoskeptic cripple fight, it wouldn't really serve any purpose save for the amusement at our relative ignorance by those more knowledgeable on both sides of the isle.

[Johnny1975]

Alright Winston, I'll debate you. You low down dirty punk, get ready for a world of pain! I'ma gonna jab you with facts, and right hook you with figures, I'ma gonna wipe the goddam floor with you! By the time I'm done with your sorry ass, you'll regret the day you messed with me, you mark my words!!!

That's enough trash talk. I'm kidding anyway, I'm a conspiracy "theorist" myself. I hope someone takes you up up on your offer, big boy.

[Winston]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)

So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

Find an expert to debate. I'm really not qualified, as my depth of knowledge of conspiracies is mostly limited to thorough analysis by experts that seems far more logical, scientifically plausible, and concise than that of what comes out of the conspiracist side. You and me arguing would just be a pseudoconspiricist-pseudoskeptic cripple fight, it wouldn't really serve any purpose save for the amusement at our relative ignorance by those more knowledgeable on both sides of the isle.

Excuse me, but speak for yourself. You don't speak for me dude. Wtf? You may not be knowledgeable. But I am. I've spent years studying conspiracies and I know practically every argument on both sides. So I am very knowledgeable, or else I would not be offering to debate. Duh.

Why do you think the anti-conspiracy group is more logical and scientifically plausible than the conspiracy side? On what basis? Many of them have been caught lying. Is lying logical to you?

Examples:

- Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" lied numerous times. He claims that no one heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. But there are over 50 documented witnesses, including police officers.
- Posner claims that there are no whistleblowers in the JFK assassination. But there are over a dozen documented ones. I've named many in my report and many of their testimonials have been recorded too.
- Posner claimed that Kennedy's head moved to the back and left because the rear shot caused a reverse ricochet or muscle spasm. Yet this is all talk. It's never been demonstrated that a bullet hitting an object will make the object move toward the shooter. Anyone who's fired a rifle will tell you that's bullshit. It's an obvious lie.
- The 9/11 Commission claims that the twin towers of the WTC were hollow on the inside, and that's why they collapsed so quickly. But the original blueprints of the WTC show that they were NOT hollow. They have been made public at AE911Truth.org.

Anyone can lie. But for some reason, you automatically buy everyone that lies as long as they defend the government's story. Why is that? Do you care about the truth? Is lying ok in your book? Can you explain why lying to defend the government conspirators is justified?

If there's no conspiracy, then why the cover up? A cover up proves that there is something to hide.

Why were key witnesses murdered or suicided? Why would a key witness about to blow the case open commit suicide all of a sudden? What happened to Dorothy Kilgallan? Why was there no investigation? Why was there a rush to judgment? Why was the government 100 percent convinced that Oswald acted alone, just MINUTES after the assassination? How can anyone be so sure that someone acted alone, unless that's what they wanted to believe?

Where is your common sense here?

[HouseMD]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)

So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

Find an expert to debate. I'm really not qualified, as my depth of knowledge of conspiracies is mostly limited to thorough analysis by experts that seems far more logical, scientifically plausible, and concise than that of what comes out of the conspiracist side. You and me arguing would just be a pseudoconspiricist-pseudoskeptic cripple fight, it wouldn't really serve any purpose save for the amusement at our relative ignorance by those more knowledgeable on both sides of the isle.

Excuse me, but speak for yourself. You don't speak for me dude. Wtf? You may not be knowledgeable. But I am. I've spent years studying conspiracies and I know practically every argument on both sides. So I am very knowledgeable, or else I would not be offering to debate. Duh.

Why do you think the anti-conspiracy group is more logical and scientifically plausible than the conspiracy side? On what basis? Many of them have been caught lying. Is lying logical to you?

Examples:

- Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" lied numerous times. He claims that no one heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. But there are over 50 documented witnesses, including police officers.
- Posner claims that there are no whistleblowers in the JFK assassination. But there are over a dozen documented ones. I've named many in my report and many of their testimonials have been recorded too.
- Posner claimed that Kennedy's head moved to the back and left because the rear shot caused a reverse ricochet or muscle spasm. Yet this is all talk. It's never been demonstrated that a bullet hitting an object will make the object move toward the shooter. Anyone who's fired a rifle will tell you that's bullshit. It's an obvious lie.
- The 9/11 Commission claims that the twin towers of the WTC were hollow on the inside, and that's why they collapsed so quickly. But the original blueprints of the WTC show that they were NOT hollow. They have been made public at AE911Truth.org.

Anyone can lie. But for some reason, you automatically buy everyone that lies as long as they defend the government's story. Why is that? Do you care about the truth? Is lying ok in your book? Can you explain why lying to defend the government conspirators is justified?

If there's no conspiracy, then why the cover up? A cover up proves that there is something to hide.

Why were key witnesses murdered or suicided? Why would a key witness about to blow the case open commit suicide all of a sudden? What happened to Dorothy Kilgallan? Why was there no investigation? Why was there a rush to judgment? Why was the government 100 percent convinced that Oswald acted alone, just MINUTES after the assassination? How can anyone be so sure that someone acted alone, unless that's what they wanted to believe?

Where is your common sense here?

Congratulations on practically having a PhD in bullshit though.

[Devil Dog]

Winston, your need to constantly tell people how intelligent/freethinking/outsidetheboxthinking reeks of insecurity.

[Winston]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:

Hi Skeptics,
It's your pal Winston again. Sorry I've been away for a while. Anyway, I heard back from Jim Fetzer. He said he's be willing to host a debate about conspiracies between me and one of you. His radio show podcast is at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Alex of the Skeptiko Podcast said he might be interested, but doesn't know how to host three way. I will try asking Whitley Strieber of UnknownCountry.com too.

Anyway, so who's game? If you are interested in debating me, please PM me with your contact info and availability, and we can go from there. I do not have time to wade through hundreds of comments bashing me by the way, so don't expect me to see them. So if you accept the challenge, PM me. Thanks.

Btw, if none of you accept, I will offer the challenge to the skeptics in my SCEPCOP forum (yes we have some there as well). If they don't accept, then I'll contact Michael Shermer, Mark Roberts, or Steven Novella to see if they're interested.

Thanks for your attention.

The master of debunking pseudoskeptics,
Winston Wu
Founder of SCEPCOP (www.debunkingskeptics.com)

So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

Find an expert to debate. I'm really not qualified, as my depth of knowledge of conspiracies is mostly limited to thorough analysis by experts that seems far more logical, scientifically plausible, and concise than that of what comes out of the conspiracist side. You and me arguing would just be a pseudoconspiricist-pseudoskeptic cripple fight, it wouldn't really serve any purpose save for the amusement at our relative ignorance by those more knowledgeable on both sides of the isle.

Excuse me, but speak for yourself. You don't speak for me dude. Wtf? You may not be knowledgeable. But I am. I've spent years studying conspiracies and I know practically every argument on both sides. So I am very knowledgeable, or else I would not be offering to debate. Duh.

Why do you think the anti-conspiracy group is more logical and scientifically plausible than the conspiracy side? On what basis? Many of them have been caught lying. Is lying logical to you?

Examples:

- Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" lied numerous times. He claims that no one heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. But there are over 50 documented witnesses, including police officers.
- Posner claims that there are no whistleblowers in the JFK assassination. But there are over a dozen documented ones. I've named many in my report and many of their testimonials have been recorded too.
- Posner claimed that Kennedy's head moved to the back and left because the rear shot caused a reverse ricochet or muscle spasm. Yet this is all talk. It's never been demonstrated that a bullet hitting an object will make the object move toward the shooter. Anyone who's fired a rifle will tell you that's bullshit. It's an obvious lie.
- The 9/11 Commission claims that the twin towers of the WTC were hollow on the inside, and that's why they collapsed so quickly. But the original blueprints of the WTC show that they were NOT hollow. They have been made public at AE911Truth.org.

Anyone can lie. But for some reason, you automatically buy everyone that lies as long as they defend the government's story. Why is that? Do you care about the truth? Is lying ok in your book? Can you explain why lying to defend the government conspirators is justified?

If there's no conspiracy, then why the cover up? A cover up proves that there is something to hide.

Why were key witnesses murdered or suicided? Why would a key witness about to blow the case open commit suicide all of a sudden? What happened to Dorothy Kilgallan? Why was there no investigation? Why was there a rush to judgment? Why was the government 100 percent convinced that Oswald acted alone, just MINUTES after the assassination? How can anyone be so sure that someone acted alone, unless that's what they wanted to believe?

Where is your common sense here?

Congratulations on practically having a PhD in bullshit though.

So you can't answer any of my questions? Then why are you debating a topic you know nothing about? That doesn't make sense. You're being illogical again.

Anyway, I guess you lose. You have no credible points or answers to the questions above. I guess you are a disinfo shill that's only here to obfuscate things. Not an honest rational truth seeker.

How do I have a Ph D in bullshit? What am I bullshitting about? I never bullshit. All my points are to the point. I get to the bottom line fast. I don't beat around the bush. That's the total opposite of a bullshitter. Why do you like to call people the opposite of what they actually are? Illogical. Does not compute.

Anyway, I guess you lose this debate and have nothing to offer except bullshit and cheap antics.

[Winston]

Winston, your need to constantly tell people how intelligent/freethinking/outsidetheboxthinking reeks of insecurity.

Maybe. But that's irrelevant. Why don't you address the points and issues above instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks? Only someone in a losing position needs to resort to that. Stick to the issues please.

[HouseMD]

Update:

I just posted this update on the Australian Skeptics FB page about my radio debate challenge:
So anyway, if none of the Australian Skeptics are willing to step up to the plate, are any of you anti-conspiracy people here willing to debate me on the radio, one on one, on Jim Fetzer's show?

HouseMD, what about you?

Find an expert to debate. I'm really not qualified, as my depth of knowledge of conspiracies is mostly limited to thorough analysis by experts that seems far more logical, scientifically plausible, and concise than that of what comes out of the conspiracist side. You and me arguing would just be a pseudoconspiricist-pseudoskeptic cripple fight, it wouldn't really serve any purpose save for the amusement at our relative ignorance by those more knowledgeable on both sides of the isle.

Excuse me, but speak for yourself. You don't speak for me dude. Wtf? You may not be knowledgeable. But I am. I've spent years studying conspiracies and I know practically every argument on both sides. So I am very knowledgeable, or else I would not be offering to debate. Duh.

Why do you think the anti-conspiracy group is more logical and scientifically plausible than the conspiracy side? On what basis? Many of them have been caught lying. Is lying logical to you?

Examples:

- Gerald Posner, author of "Case Closed" lied numerous times. He claims that no one heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. But there are over 50 documented witnesses, including police officers.
- Posner claims that there are no whistleblowers in the JFK assassination. But there are over a dozen documented ones. I've named many in my report and many of their testimonials have been recorded too.
- Posner claimed that Kennedy's head moved to the back and left because the rear shot caused a reverse ricochet or muscle spasm. Yet this is all talk. It's never been demonstrated that a bullet hitting an object will make the object move toward the shooter. Anyone who's fired a rifle will tell you that's bullshit. It's an obvious lie.
- The 9/11 Commission claims that the twin towers of the WTC were hollow on the inside, and that's why they collapsed so quickly. But the original blueprints of the WTC show that they were NOT hollow. They have been made public at AE911Truth.org.

Anyone can lie. But for some reason, you automatically buy everyone that lies as long as they defend the government's story. Why is that? Do you care about the truth? Is lying ok in your book? Can you explain why lying to defend the government conspirators is justified?

If there's no conspiracy, then why the cover up? A cover up proves that there is something to hide.

Why were key witnesses murdered or suicided? Why would a key witness about to blow the case open commit suicide all of a sudden? What happened to Dorothy Kilgallan? Why was there no investigation? Why was there a rush to judgment? Why was the government 100 percent convinced that Oswald acted alone, just MINUTES after the assassination? How can anyone be so sure that someone acted alone, unless that's what they wanted to believe?

Where is your common sense here?

Congratulations on practically having a PhD in bullshit though.

So you can't answer any of my questions? Then why are you debating a topic you know nothing about? That doesn't make sense. You're being illogical again.

Anyway, I guess you lose. You have no credible points or answers to the questions above. I guess you are a disinfo shill that's only here to obfuscate things. Not an honest rational truth seeker.

How do I have a Ph D in bullshit? What am I bullshitting about? I never bullshit. All my points are to the point. I get to the bottom line fast. I don't beat around the bush. That's the total opposite of a bullshitter. Why do you like to call people the opposite of what they actually are? Illogical. Does not compute.

Anyway, I guess you lose this debate and have nothing to offer except bullshit and cheap antics.

It was never a debate. It isn't something I would ever care to debate. You're basically just saying a bunch of stuff in my general direction, I'm shrugging and saying whatevs, and then you're like "I won!"

Quick someone, queue "We Are the Champions" and break out the champaign.