ok - that's easily done, actually... even knowing full well that this thread isn't about
you
start here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-you-a-quack.157899/
you specifically argue that you're not a quack and that you "use reasoning and facts on paranormal topics just as I do in science topics and philosophy topics."
and yet when asked to provide said "reasoning and facts" with the same level of evidence that science would require to validate a claim you argue instead from anecdote, eye-witness delusions, mass hysteria and personal opinion.
that is called a bait and switch -
the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor then thwarting expectations with something less desirable
baiting with reasoning and facts and intellectual scientific discourse while then providing only a trolling delusional Dunning-Kruger afflicted opinionated soliloquy on why mainstream is bad and only you pseudoscience cranks are able to see the truth
pseudoscience (and conspiracist ideation) is not a victim-less crime
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-pseudoscience-conspiracy-theory-victimless-crimes.html