Re: UFO Debunkers: A Dangerous "Cult" or Super Patriots?/ The History

You make the same mistake as all debunkers do, besides flat-out lying
(a debunker specialty,) it is not up to us or anybody to prove
anything to you. It is simply up to you, and if you can't handle the
truth, which you most assuredly cannot, you should find something more
constructive to do!!

I have seen the evidence, but I am scientifically qualified to verify
that it is off-world or extraterrestrial-based.  Your kind simple does
not have the credentials, education or even the intelligence to verify
what honest researchers already have.  I am afraid that the debunkers
are left out in the cold once again.  Perhaps you can spend the rest
of your days looking at "grainy" pictures of crash-test dummies, we
are too busy interpreting what all this contact with off-world
intelligences mean.

Sorry debunker, your kind has been left in the garbage-bin of
humanity, let's hope somebody takes out the trash very very soon!!


Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:27:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
> Wholeflaffers ASA <science@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> >Demonstrably wrong, not even old-time debunkers use that tired
> >technique anymore.  How sad you must be :,<
>
> Well, that's one way to say "There is none" using excessive
> verbiage. If you disagree, please post the location of the
> physical evidence. Note: fuzzy videos and still photos don't
> count as "physical evidence". Alien bodies or pieces of
> alien spacecraft, or alien artifacts, would be somewhat more
> persuasive than some moron saying "demonstrably wrong"
> without the associated demonstration.
>
> And why should I be sad, since I don't particularly care if
> you embrace looniness?
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:00:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
> >> Wholeflaffers ASA <science@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> >>
> >> >...The History of
> >> >UFO Debunking...
> >>
> >> ...consists of asking for physical evidence. So far, none
> >> has appeared.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Bob C.
> >>
> >> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> >> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> >>                           - McNameless
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless