You really, really do not understand how this burden of proof thing works, do you?
And when someone says “I had real evidence, but I can’t give it to you now, because the aliens came back and substituted fake evidence, which I hadn’t noticed until just now, when you pointed out to me that the pictures of aliens were dancers on a TV variety show, no, really!”
OK, done. Next?
On what basis but also what have you provided in the way of evidence to prove that Billy faked his material
I haven’t seen you present anything so far so what are you basing your claims on?
Nothing so far but insinuations
Well I am afraid you are stuffed then
Didn’t you take compulsory English classes at school?
I’m sorry. We have too many scientists here and not enough lawyers to agree with your approach to determining “Truth.” Truth is defined by how closely a given observation matches other observations in controlled environments. It is not based upon which advocate can argue best.
Come on for crying out loud
Compare these two ladies in the photo
Do they look like the same people to you
I mean really
Go to 'Meier alien photo and compare it with Dean Martin “ding-a-ling” photo
I would reassess your own case if I was you before you make this criticism on my own person.
Then look at the evidence and not the argument
We did, and unreproducable observations are worthless. Sorry.
Because that observation is flawed
So why are the fake photos still being used as proof?
Dude! Look at #110 and the Dean Martin photo. Her hair is styled EXACTLY the same. The same strands of hair fall the same way around her face, there’s the same bright curl under her cheekbone.
Of course Meier’s photo is blurrier. That’s bound to happen when you’re invited to photograph an alien woman. Who can be expected to get a solid focus on a stationary subject 10 feet away from you?
Especially with that horribly ancient 70s photo technology.
One of the basic concepts is science is that nature plays fair. If a person in India observes that the Moon reflects about 12% of the sunlight which falls upon it, then a different person in a different country should get the same figures if they measured in the same way.
If one person observes that the rare porridge bird lays its eggs in mid-air, then anyone else with access to a porridge bird should be able to confirm that. If they do not see the porridge bird actually laying its eggs, they can find that eggshells consistent with porridge birds are never found in a nest. And other observations that build on the porridge bird’s natural habits.
If only one person has ever seen a porridge bird, and we find that the genuine porridge bird feathers he has collected are dyed hen’s feathers, and his recording of the porridge bird’s call are actually tracks from Bob Crosby’s Orchestra, then we have serious doubts of the existence of the porridge bird at all. It does not matter how convincing he is in his Porridge Bird Lectures, until someone else independently confirms that they exist we do not add porridge birds to the textbooks.
I hope you understand.
According to whom
You claim fake but no one has proven that its a fake
Look at the eye brows, the nose, the lips, the shape of the face, the size of the forehead, the chin and the length of the face.
I mean seriously even a blind man could see that these two ladies are totally different people
The photos have turned out good enough to see that the two ladies are totally different people
You are making an illogical comparisons
Everybody has something to go by in terms of Billy’s proof material
The problem is people won’t look any deeper and any cursory glance at anything will not avail the truth of the matter.
There is always a context to everything
For example if you were just about to punch your friend as a gesture of playfulness but right at that moment a stranger walks in the room and sees you just about to punch someone and calls the police, who in this case has got their perception and interpretation of reality wrong?
Um, yes, sometimes it does. 