Any source reference I cited was quickly impuned as to motive.
You lied about the qualifications and conclusions of your source. I caught you in the lie.
It was pointed out that only physical evidence accepted when all know that eyewitness accounts and researchers integrety is the evidence offered.
Your source admits that prima facie evidence did not exist for her conclusion. That immediately makes it scientifically untenable. Yet she persisted in that conclusion without examining any other possible cause. And got paid for it.
That was when you accused us of "sticking our heads in the sand," rather than to believe her. When all your researchers were revealed for the charlatans they were, that's when you backpedalled and tried to weasel out of any responsibility by saying you were only repeating others' claims.
These are all standerd debunking tactics that I am rather inexperianced at dealing with.
Contradiction. You are either familiar enough with them to recognize them as standard, or you're not. These are "standard" techniques only in the sense that the errors in reasoning you are making have been known and written about since Aristotle.
My inexperiance with the subject was obvious as I was undertaking this as a journey of personal discovery.
You revealed that voluntarily at a strategically advantageous time: your reasoning had been soundly refuted and you had to admit you had limited understanding of science, so you changed horses and made it seem in retrospect that everyone was picking on you for having seen a UFO.
Open and serious debate considering the posibilities and implecations of were rendered mute.
Only after you lost the debate.
Anyone incapable of recognizing the bias to the subject and the meathodology used to debunk is wearing blinders.
"Agree with me or else!"
Most of it was centered around my weaknesses at debate and not the merits of the issue itself.
The debate was around your inability to provide and correctly represent the merits of the issue, yet your demand that it be taken seriously anyway. You want the discussion to go in your preplanned direction, the way most UFO discussions with skeptics go. You aren't prepared for the direction in which they're actually taken, and the speed with which people catch your straw-man arguments and hype. So now you're frustrated. Understandable, but unacceptable.
You plan to "win" with stupid debate tricks and now you're frustrated that it didn't work here as well as it did on the other forums you posted at about the alleged spaceship on the Moon before coming here.
You refer to UFO catch phrases when I am not even aware of what they are.
Or so you say.
I am not CT nut or a forum troll but someone really looking for answers because I have legitimate questions.
Utter hogwash. You were given answers. You didn't like them, so you called everyone names for pointing out what was wrong with your preconceptions. You've used the same rhetorical approach four times with little modification.
Your approach is entirely inconsistent with people looking for answers. It is entirely consistent with someone pushing his own preconceived ideas. You go from forum to forum with the same martyr tactics every time people catch you.
Tired of your pointed questions with their thinly veiled agenda and will respond to them no more.
You don't answer any of my questions anyway.
Is this another threat to go away (the fifth in turn)? Will you be back in a day or so to make sure everyone knows you're leaving?
Spare us the drama. You know what evidence science expects.
|