Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[cisco]

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by cisco

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

No the issue here is treating others as they treat you. If he is going to accuse others of lying because they disagree or because he misunderstand what they are saying, then that is how he is going to be treated. And the fact is that in our discussions these issues have been discussed and he has moved beyond the possibility of ignorance. It's one thing to make claims not knowing all the facts, but when one continues to make such claims, knowing they are wrong, having been shown they are untrue, then it's the same as a lie in my book. It's all about intent. His intent is dishonest in that he now knows these claims about things like the IM warning are not true, yet continues to argue them. He knows that I never made any literal claims about what he actually said, but instead pointed out the the fault in his argument. he knows this, but instead uses the argument as a means to accuse me of putting words in his mouth which I never did. After this being pointed out well over 5 times, it's no longer ignorance.

He has long past the benefit of doubt and came out of the gate making such assertions without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as we gave him, simply because he didn't like being disagreed with.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

No the issue here is treating others as they treat you. If he is going to accuse others of lying because they disagree or because he misunderstand what they are saying, then that is how he is going to be treated. And the fact is that in our discussions these issues have been discussed and he has moved beyond the possibility of ignorance. It's one thing to make claims not knowing all the facts, but when one continues to make such claims, knowing they are wrong, having been shown they are untrue, then it's the same as a lie in my book. It's all about intent. His intent is dishonest in that he now knows these claims about things like the IM warning are not true, yet continues to argue them. He knows that I never made any literal claims about what he actually said, but instead pointed out the the fault in his argument. he knows this, but instead uses the argument as a means to accuse me of putting words in his mouth which I never did. After this being pointed out well over 5 times, it's no longer ignorance.

He has long past the benefit of doubt and came out of the gate making such assertions without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as we gave him, simply because he didn't like being disagreed with.

Exactimundo.

While I'll take an occasional cheap shot, I usually enjoy the back and forth with the twoofers because I was once one of them and because being misguided is no reason to attack someone personally (both RedIbis and Max should back me up here, we get into it all the time but at the end of the day I like both of them).

This guy is much worse. Not only has he played the victim card, he played it to project his own modus operandi onto the members who made the mistake of giving him the time of day. He's EITHER dishonest or a troll... with the most likely answer being somewhat of a combo platter.

Takes a lot to make my ignore list, as is evidenced by the fact this time yesterday there was only one name on it.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Ed, did you or did you NOT say that part of the reason the documentary is a misrepresentation because of things they left out? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Yes, but that doesnt mean Im saying they should have included every truther and every single possible subject. I listed some examples of people and subjects they could have interviewed, brought up or even mentioned, but didnt. I never implied what you claim Im saying.

I also said they misrepresented them by claiming they are saying things they arent, like claiming that Avery is denying Delta flight 1989 even existed and the passenger never took the flight.

Quote:

you know you have been caught in a lie about thinks like the IM message and the pancake claims. And stop lying about the Haaratz claim.

Where did I lie about the instant messages? What I wrote was written in the news reports. The graphic really isnt totally accurate, and NIST did go against the many pancaking theories.


<snipped taunting trolling insults>

[Edx]

Originally Posted by cisco

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I tried replying to yourpost and then lost it all half way through, you'll have to forgive me if it takes a little longer to reply to it. I wont forget though.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Firstly; sorry - I am a bit late to the party, and I have only read about the first 4 pages.

Secondly; to those who are not familiar with me, I am about as far from being a CTist as it is possible to get (without being an NWO member!).

I wish to say this:

The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.

The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.

Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.

Oh, for God's sake don't brink up the dropout thing! Edx went on about that for pages! We’ve agreed it’s not relevant to the main discussion of this thread which is what was factually wrong about the BBC program.

Quote:

The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.

Any alleged bias by the BBC is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which, again, is were there any FACTUAL statements in the show about the truthers claims that were incorrect.

[Edx]

SatansMaleVoiceChoir, you do know you will now be called a truther dont you. Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here. In retrospect I should have approached it the same way you did, but then I would still likely have had a similar reaction.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Edx

SatansMaleVoiceChoir, you do know you will now be called a truther dont you. Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here.

People can call me "Robot Called Janet", if they like - doesn't make it so.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

People can call me "Robot Called Janet", if they like - doesn't make it so.

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Edx

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

Best way to avoid having your honesty questioned? Always be honest; especially to yourself. Let the hard, quantifiable facts guide you; don't lose sight of the big picture, and don't allow yourself to get bogged down in coincidence, hearsay and poor science.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

I don't have an answer; I am English and not familiar with any of the things you mentioned. I will say that in the case of paedophiles, most news programs or documentaries probably WOULD mention things like charity work carried out; simply for the "Well, you never can tell.." juxtaposition of it all.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Edx

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

Im not going to respond to you or Jonnys baiting taunts and childish insults anymore. I have never done that to you.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

I don't have an answer; I am English and not familiar with any of the things you mentioned. I will say that in the case of paedophiles, most news programs or documentaries probably WOULD mention things like charity work carried out; simply for the "Well, you never can tell.." juxtaposition of it all.

Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.

And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread).

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

[quote=Drudgewire;3415123]Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.

And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread). [/QUOTE]

I know; I too enjoy a bit of healthy debate. Thanks, Drudge.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

Originally Posted by Edx

Im not going to respond to you or Jonnys baiting taunts and childish insults anymore. I have never done that to you.

I will take that to mean you have a higher standard for your school work than you do for your posts on this discussion board.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Edx

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.

What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?

Ed

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Edx

I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?
Ed

Have to agree completely with the above.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by beachnut

[color=black]The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.

Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

Quote:

What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread).

Of course neither Drudgewire or Jonny can show that Ive actually done the things they've said Ive done, and its rather hypacritical to suggest considering all the baiting taunts and insults Ive had on this threat.

[jaydeehess]

I have just watched the "Conspiracy Files" episode. I thought it quite well done.

Yes they are not complimantary to Avery or any of the CT's they interview but they do allow them to speak their peice.
Then specific claims are quite well debunked.
Also video that I have never seen before or have seen but only in highly compressed and recompressed forms.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Have to agree completely with the above.

I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. The only way to approach this without making things up is to consider those profitting off these fantasies as delusional or con men. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.

A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.

That said, I agree with your previous comments, where you essentially said impartiality doesn't make for exciting viewing.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?

You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Gravy

They're doing a show on WTC 7 next.

That's good to hear since their segment of WTC 7 was the lightest in the video and (at the risk of soundly like Chris Sarns) contained one exaggeration. They state that the fires were (a definitive) partially fueled by the deisel on the building. In fact NIST has only suggested that it might have been possible but that there is no direct evidence that the deisel was invovled.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.

In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Edx

Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit

I am sure you are relatively informed, it shows.

Dylan is like a kid, spewing made up ideas from nothing. I agree with your assessment.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Edx

People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.

I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.

Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.

Again, we agree in principle. However, anything they appear on which doesn't reach the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job is going to wind up being called a hatchet piece the next day anyway.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Oops!

[jaydeehess]

On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Edx

You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.

I agree with you for the most part; things like the use of cameras and lighting, etc while very subtle to the average viewer are/were/can be extremely effective in putting an almost subliminal spin on things. As I have said, this kind of reporting leaves the program open to cries of 'Hatchet Job' or 'Hit Piece' from CTers, thus making it easier for them to dismiss. When people are making bizarre claims, there should be no need to use trickery or spin to make them look any more stupid - leave that to those making the claims; the hard facts in contrast should also assist!

Quote:

...you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion.

Agreed - to a certain extent.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Again, we agree in principle. However, anything they appear on which doesn't reach the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job is going to wind up being called a hatchet piece the next day anyway.

Fair point - I just think we shouldn't be making it easier for them to do so.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.

They say that Avery claims that United 93 landed at Cleveland, but then explain that actually that was Delta 1989. They show and interview a passenger from the plane as if he is denying she even travelled on the plane. I know implication can easily be denied by those that want to be obtuse about that, but when anyone that doesnt know watches it they will assume thats what Avery actually thinks. I know I did, along with assuming he'd dropped out of University and thinking that it was a major claim that 4000 Jews were warned and didnt go to work that day and this is what the people they had on probably thought.

Ed

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.

Bolding mine.

Which is all fair play - either way, Dylan is hoist by his own petard/stupidity - which is as it should be, ideally.