Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Surely you can understand why there is skepticism though? The video posted recently with the white lines that is a decade old, and randomly sent to someone with no info. Like, is the standard of evidence so low that qualifies as being accepted with no skepticism? Or the magnesium pieces that were investigated. Just sent to some guy with no contact info or ability to follow up?
|
Oh no, I get the skepticism. I'm a skeptic. I am very much a "prove it" guy, and my posting history is more than enough proof of that. I'm considered a curmudgeon because I'm skeptical of everything. What I am seeing here is more cynicism and some denialism. It's hard to take much of this subject forward because it is considered taboo in many circles, which has always made me scratch my head. If you won't explore all ideas and have to build walls around ideas, are you really examining all possibilities and maintaining that open mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think this is more about your motte and Bailey show then anything else.
|
No, it's about the self-proclaimed skeptics looking down the nose of anything they don't want to consider and then dismissing it. Why would I present information that you've already said is not worthy of review? That's the game skeptics play. Just look at your own behaviors here. List some researchers, then attack their work and credibility. Try to focus on the findings, then attack the lack of complete lab reports. Counter than summaries are acceptable, then attack the labs themselves. Los Alamos was not a good enough lab to review physical evidence. Los ####ing Alamos! That sort of said everything right there. There was never going to be anything to satisfy you at that point. So please save your judgmental bull####, as you're one of those people that has gone beyond skepticism and is well into cynicism. You're a true disbeliever and you wear the badge with honor.