And you, Sky King... have you bothered to interview all those people?
Irrelevant. If Turbonium purports to represent the nature of the eyewitness testimony then he has the burden of proof to show how he discovered that nature. Someone questioning whether he has borne that burden of proof does not have to bear it himself. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof away from the claimant onto someone appropriately questioning the basis of the claim.
Or are you just assuming that the testimonies of these hundreds of people would all be consistent...
Irrelevant. The question is not the nature of the testimony, but what someone has done to verify the nature of that testimony prior to summarizing it for others.
And referring to those testimonies as if you actually possessed them?
And what original research have you done? You seem yourself capable of little more than silly high school debate tricks.
|