[continued from previous message]   
      
   Do I really need to go back and find the post where you said that you   
   have not seen an alien yourself, but you have met a person who has,   
   and that you believed them?   
      
   (snip)   
      
   >>> ... and inform them of the gov psyops and narrative programs that   
   >>>>have been in place for decades.   
   >>   
   >>Millennia! Who do you think build the Pyramids?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Humans with advanced tech.   
      
   Alien tech, right? Did that involve levitation of huge rocks? Maybe   
   something like this?   
      
   https://youtube.com/shorts/Bb4O3T-Mcf8?si=JiASlas1ePFtuTcd   
      
      
   >>>>>>> ... but you will never search for yourself and switch. ...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>I can find hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same shit   
   >>>>>>you do,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Military officials talk shit? Ok smarty.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Another appeal to authorities.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Diversion   
   >>   
   >>Au contraire. It's a direct attack on the quality of your argument.   
   >>You're saying that I, just like you do, should believe the claims,   
   >>because they are also made by "military officials", and people in that   
   >>position would not "talk shit".   
   >>>   
   >   
   >The difference is I look at decades of info and documented evidence and   
   >research. ...   
      
   Documented evidence that you refuse to present here. 'Oh, I don't have   
   it anymore. I can't possibly show you everything. Do your own   
   research!'   
      
   >... I don't just believe one or two officials. You're the believer   
   >type here.   
      
   I'm the 'not believer'.   
      
   >>>Of course not.   
   >>>Have you checked them out at all?   
   >>>And do you just believe the gov and media narratives?   
   >>   
   >>"Just", as in 'only', or 'unquestioningly'? In either case, no.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You dodged the first question.   
      
   I've read and seen my fair share of reports of 'alien encounters'.   
      
   >You don't go far enough with questioning them. ...   
      
   You bet I questioned them.   
      
   (snip)   
      
   >>>Do you want some? ...   
   >>   
   >>Whatever gave you that idea?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> ... First you have to convince me that you're sincere and open   
   >>>minded and not just a sheep, clown and troll.   
   >>   
   >>And I would rip every- and anything you'd post to pieces. You know it.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Without even any info on the subject? Haha. Loser.   
      
   Try me. Or are you afraid I'll hurt your feelings?   
      
      
   >>If you trusted your sources, your ideas, and your arguments, you would   
   >>bury me under them.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I trust no one. ...   
      
   Not even the guy who told he'd seen an alien?   
      
   >... And I don't trust you.   
      
   Why? I have never lied to you.   
      
   (snip)   
      
      
   >>>>>They put strict laws in place. Find out why and then come back.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Name one law They have put in place.   
   >>>>'§1: Keep the alien spaceships hidden from the gullible masses.'   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>In 1969, NASA passed a federal regulation dealing with ‘Extra-terrestrial   
   >>>Exposure’. The “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law” offers a legal precedent   
   >>>for   
   >>>the detention and indefinite imprisonment of any individual who comes into   
   >>>contact with extraterrestrials.   
   >>   
   >>What kind of extraterrestrial 'material' do you believe it was thought   
   >>someone could be exposed to?   
   >>   
   >>I've never heard of this, so I'll do some digging.   
   >>   
   >>Before I start, I think it is about procedure in case of the Apollo 11   
   >>crew's and future astronauts' exposure to something   
   >>'extraterrestrial'. Keeping us all safe from E.T. But we'll see. I'll   
   >>start by 'researching' “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law”.   
   >>   
   >>[clickity clickity]   
   >>   
   >>https://tinyurl.com/54jchbte   
   >>   
   >>This is what you are talking about, right? Easy peasy.   
   >>   
   >>By the way, it's not a law per se.   
   >>***   
   >>PART 1211-EXTRATERRESTRIAL   
   >>EXPOSURE   
   >>   
   >>§ 1211.100 Scope.   
   >>This part establishes: (a) NASA   
   >>policy, responsibility and authority to   
   >>guard the Earth against any harmful   
   >>contamination or adverse changes in its   
   >>environment resulting from personnel,   
   >>spacecraft and other property returning   
   >>to the Earth after landing on or coming within the atmospheric   
   >>envelope of a celestial body; and (b) security requirements,   
   >>restrictions and safeguards that are necessary in the interest of the   
   >>national security.   
   >>[...]   
   >>***   
   >>   
   >   
   >There's never been any evidence of any contamination. Why make a document   
   >like that? ...   
      
   Really? You have no idea why NASA would have a protocol in place in   
   the case that the first humans to walk on the Moon should return with   
   something 'extraterrestrial'?   
      
   >... People have been arrested.   
      
   I call bullshit. Arrested for what? Names, dates, and context, please.   
   Your inevitable refusal to deliver will come as no surprise.   
      
      
   >>Told ya!   
   >>   
   >>It's an easy read, and as expected, it is nothing like you described   
   >>it. Prove me wrong. Quotes from the link is a must. Think of it as "an   
   >>interesting challenge". You like challenges, remember.   
   >>   
   >   
   >If it was easy and quick then it wasn't a challenge. You did practically   
   >nothing and then gloated.   
      
   I found the original document, which is more than you ever did. Of   
   course it turned out that you had the title wrong, and that you   
   misrepresented the content.   
      
   I can imagine it's part of the 'Kook's Canon of All Things They' and   
   you never bothered to fact check it.   
      
      
   >>I can start and show you what I mean. You stated that   
   >>   
   >>"The “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law” offers a legal precedent for   
   >>the detention and indefinite imprisonment of any individual who comes   
   >>into contact with extraterrestrials."   
   >>   
   >>Where in the text do they talk about potential "indefinite   
   >>imprisonment"? The Apollo 11 crew spent three weeks in quarantine   
   >>AFAIR.   
   >>   
   >>And where do they use the precise term "extraterrestrials".   
      
   Oops! That little innocent looking plural 's' makes all the   
   difference.   
      
      
   >>I am convinced that you never have read full text before. If you had,   
   >>you wouldn't have misquoted the name of the text. Also, I'm sure you   
   >>copy pasted your paragraph about the wrongly named “Extraterrestrial   
   >>Exposure Law” and that it is all you know about [it].   
   >>>   
   >   
   >You're out of your depth.   
      
   Of course I was right... again.   
      
      
   >>>>>>Understand that I'm interested in learning what /you/ have found and   
   >>>>>>where you found it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Yes you're obsessed about that. I get it. ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I really don't think you do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>So you're a very seasoned troll? Professional perhaps?   
   >>   
   >>I don't troll. I poke.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You have no good reason.   
      
   "Putin is not the bad guy." All the reason I need.   
      
   (snip)   
      
   >>>>>>>>My sole point is to expose you as a liar, and every time you fail to   
   >>>>>>>>provide a source for your claims my point is proven.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>No, ...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Yes. Did you, or didn't you, provide a source?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Why do I have to? You'll just jerk off like always.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>If I had made a claim and was asked to provide evidence I'd be happy   
   >>>>to do so. You, on the other hand, react like it is a personal attack   
   >>>>when people ask for your sources.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Your wokeness, trolling and clown behaviour is an offense to every   
   >>>sensible   
   >>>mature person.   
   >>   
   >>Ignore me, or stop whining.   
   >>>   
   >   
   >It's you who whines about 'kooks'.   
      
   I don't whine, or complain, about you being a kook. Now when I think   
   about it, it's the only reason I reply to you.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>You didn't. Instead you   
   >>>>>>evaded my questions exactly the way I predicted you would.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>You're not a courtroom prosecutor so quit acting like one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Not going to happen. As long as you do your thing, I'll do mine.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>You are sick.   
   >>   
   >>Again, I can only suggest that you ignore me.   
   >>   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)