(shakes head)-- for a millionth time now, according to whom?-- whom or what is/are the deciding element?
What evidence would work?
- Thread starter Crcata
- Start date
(shakes head)-- for a millionth time now, according to whom?-- whom or what is/are the deciding element?MY god, you are a joke--every one wishes that you would shut your mouth for once. in other words, no one cares what you say.
The jokes on you my reptilian friend!
You have no genuine questions to side step, and the spin you imagine, is just that Imagination, illusions and delusions.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The answer is implicit in the OP. (I would have thought it obvious.)
According to each of "us" as we see fit.
For many of us, the evidence is just not there.
For some, they are happy to believe the evidence thus far is compelling.
Which would be fine - if they didn't try to bring it to a public discussion and try to convince others. Unless they like having their arguments torn apart.
why are you labeling me this while having a female teenager persona?
you are delusional on the fact that my questions are being sidestep.
whom or what is/are the deciding element?
show how they are not-- simple.
Last edited:
so in other words " US(whomever the ffuck they are
(shrugs) ) " is the deciding element for humanity as a whole(whether they are actually correct or not?)?again, " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "whom or what is/are the deciding element?"
none have even, simply, explained why this would even be an extraordinary claim.
(shrugs)
Last edited:
Krash661, you've been arguing this same strawman, albeit by asking a question, numerous times now and you seem no closer to understanding that no one has said nor implied that which you are suggesting. A number of people have answered your question yet still you seem to think they sidestep. But as has been pointed out to you time and time again, no one is saying that reality does not exist if the public are unsure of it. Reality will continue to be whatever it is irrespective of our understanding of it. Everyone knows this. The question being asked is what evidence would work in terms of being believable I.e. how can we be sure evidence presented is a truthful representation of reality, to the extent that we can believe it.
Maybe you missed this point? Maybe you didn't and you just enjoy prancing around waving your funny-stick?
Either way, you have clearly misunderstood that which has been repeatedly said to you.
And the irony of your claims to be a tier-one scientist working on secret projects, those claims being subject to the same issue (of believability by other people) as this thread is trying to discuss, is not lost on any of us except you, it seems.
So why not just chug along back to your secret basement lab and continue working on your secret projects? You'll undoubtedly find people there much more receptive to your claims without caring one jot about whether or not you can support them. Amusing as you are, maybe it's time to put you back in the box?
Maybe you missed this point? Maybe you didn't and you just enjoy prancing around waving your funny-stick?
Either way, you have clearly misunderstood that which has been repeatedly said to you.
And the irony of your claims to be a tier-one scientist working on secret projects, those claims being subject to the same issue (of believability by other people) as this thread is trying to discuss, is not lost on any of us except you, it seems.
So why not just chug along back to your secret basement lab and continue working on your secret projects? You'll undoubtedly find people there much more receptive to your claims without caring one jot about whether or not you can support them. Amusing as you are, maybe it's time to put you back in the box?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I find it fascinating that someone, such as yourself, so out of touch with reality, feels competent to talk about it.
"What evidence would work?'
OK, if some comic plots were based on actual events and you were visited by the superhero in one of those comics and they were alien by birth or something?
OK, if some comic plots were based on actual events and you were visited by the superhero in one of those comics and they were alien by birth or something?
And now you blab away on this site about MK6 and your white hole pictures in your two labs.
Have you been cleared by MK6 to blab on this site?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
There is also the issue that illiterate scientists are not common.
One of the surest signs that someone does NOT have a security clearance is that they are bragging on an open Internet site about it.
more hypocritical shenanigans, along with your usual " want-to-be intellect " nonsense, from you?
whom is " we"-- the public or the individuals in this conversation--which again, we are led back to the " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "whom or what is/are the deciding element?"
none have even, simply, explained why this would even be an extraordinary claim.
(shrugs)
please show this to be true-- simple.
(shakes head)
whom or what is to say that this has never happened to anyone?
more of your clueless ramblings?
what about the topic?-- is the topic labeled as mock krash?-- i would have assumed that something that is actually intelligent would eventually have came from your mentality at some point. am i wrong, so far it appears so.
according to whom though ?--your mentality? and also you cannot comprehend the difference from bragging or mentioning, that or you are simply attempting some kind of hand-waving shenanigans while you pretend that you have a clue of such things, correct?