And you’ve ducked every direct question put to you.
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it sure as hell isn’t a larch.
To answer your question they park their beamship for reference and comparisons sake.
As Billy said if people aren’t satisfied with the evidence available no amount of additional proof material will ever convince them otherwise and so no point in providing more.
He isn’t allowed to forceably provide evidence in such a way that semi-plausible deniability factor is denied because people who cannot handle the truth will not be able to come to terms with the implications of his contact case and the realities of the existence of other life forms throughout the universe.
they will go crazy
So what does that fact prove except to add more credibility to the conclusions about the metal samples as its documented in this documentary I have provided the links for.
The metal sample can be seen with your own eyes in this films so what better example of proof than that?
Ducked!?
I have provided the links to the proof material you fellas desperately wanted to satisfy your questions put forth to me but you won’t look at it so who is calling the kettle black
Here’s a periodic table with photos. Notice how much various metals look like one another. Notice how you cannot determine the properties of almost all metals by sight.
You have not linked to independent publications that can verify the date and content of publication.
Shame on you runner pat the term plausible deniability mean many more things than what you have ignorantly ascribed to in singularity with the other missing definition.
here
This is one other meaning taken from wikipedia
Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true.
This is not a convoluted argument at all. This is a very simple concept that you can see demonstrated every day just by looking in the passenger side mirror of any car in America.
Will do
Mystic7 how true how very true
There is no lack of evidence proving that Meier is a fraud.
You’ve been asked some direct questions. Why do you refuse to answer?
When was it published? And why should I spend money when you could quote the relevant passage?
Linking to some report I can’t read proves nothing.
Yeah and so it also applies to the spheres in the photo as it is so evident that they are perfectly spherical
Damn it do your own research I am not going to be the baby sitter doing all the feeding when people can do it themselves not that i have access to the document right now blimy!
What have you asked me directly which haven’t been addressed before huh?
The irony is the missing irony
That’s not something that can be determined just by looking at the photos. They’re round, sure, but just a few degrees difference can significantly alter the appearance and position of the reflection.
It does no good to link to something with no publication date that is only available through Meier’s website.
All through the thread. Do your own damn research.
Look logic tells me that if it was a two feet across model of a ufo the frigging sphere would also reflect me standing in front of the damn things taking a picture.
Now the fact that you can’t see any figure reflected back from the sphere suggests its an object of relative proportion.
The investigation concluded that it had to be at least 3.5m or more
I have answered your question to your hearts content runner so don’t do a runner on me now