> “An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof.” This level of requirement is beyond what’s required to convict someone of murder

> “An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof.” This level of requirement is beyond what’s required to convict someone of murder in a court of law. It’ll basically never be met under any conditions. It’s also almost certainly selectively applied to cases where they don’t want to accept a conclusion. It’s admirable to lay out details, but I’m skeptical you’ll make any progress here. If their responses are in good faith maybe it’ll have some affect, maybe they think they’re responding in good faith? It feels strongly driven by motivated reasoning rather than a genuine interest in what’s likely to be true.