XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.alien.research   
   From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 10:34:37 +0200, the following appeared   
   in sci.skeptic, posted by Malte Runz :   
      
   >On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:58:50 +1000, "Andrew W"    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message   
   >>news:qbhf6klnb7a6djkojsklqo6iga95ssdfg4@4ax.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:24:07 +1000, "Andrew W"    
   >>>wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>(snip)   
   >>>   
   >>>>Crashed craft retrieval cases have come out hundreds of times. ...   
   >>>   
   >>>Now, that's what I call a 'positive claim', and we all know what that   
   >>>entails.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Only mainstream media followers and 'authority' followers have never heard   
   >>of that. Normies.   
   >   
   >Of course I've heard the claims made before. Do you think you're the   
   >only kook on the internet?   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> ... Upgrade your   
   >>>>sources.   
   >>>   
   >>>Name one.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Of course you don't know any except the mainstream info suppressing ones.   
   >   
   >I can't possibly know what /your/ sources are. Von Däniken? Alex   
   >Jones? Random Dude on Rumor Mill? Why don't you want to tell me?   
   >   
   >   
   >>>And no, don't wiggle your way out the usual way, suggesting   
   >>>I'm too lazy to find one myself.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>You are lazy, two minute Google result believer.   
   >   
   >Wiggle wiggle wiggle.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>Also, this is not about what my   
   >>>sources have to say, it's all about /your/ sources.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>But your sources are lying/suppressing crap. That's the real issue.   
   >   
   >You're the one making the claim, therefore you provide the evidence.   
   >This can't be a new concept to you.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>So, do you have an 'upgraded source' that provides evidence for the   
   >>>retrieval of a crashed craft created by an alien race?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>I have plenty ...   
   >   
   >So you say, but are unable to provide any. I call your bluff... again.   
   >   
   >> ... but you will never search for yourself and switch. ...   
   >   
   >I can find hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same shit   
   >you do, all claiming to have the evidence. Grainy images of out of   
   >focus gray blobs, un-named specialists and insiders spilling the   
   >beans, ancient wisdom, inter stellar revelations, anecdotal evidence   
   >of abductions, and of course, 'They are hiding the truth from us'.   
   >   
   >Understand that I'm interested in learning what /you/ have found and   
   >where you found it.   
   >   
   >   
   >> ... You're not   
   >>interested.   
   >   
   >Of course I'm interested. I ask you for an answer every time. What   
   >evidence have /you/ seen?   
   >   
   >   
   >>>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? You didn't. Instead you   
   >evaded my questions exactly the way I predicted you would.   
   >   
   >(snip the wiggle wiggle wiggle.)   
   >   
   It's not very nice to make fun of the cognitively   
   "challenged". But I admit it can be fun... ;-)   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)