4 ms·
This comment, which doesn't reference any of the very powerful bits evidence, and merely spouts a lot of ad hominem, probably belongs on YouTube. I see very co
by jollybean 5y ago
This comment, which doesn't reference any of the very powerful bits evidence, and merely spouts a lot of ad hominem, probably belongs on YouTube.
I see very compelling evidence for an argument, which makes your comment seem even more 'unhinged'.
"he analyses these videos with a baked-in assumption that it's "fake", not from an unbiased view"
The balance of 'unbiased view' of either it's 'aliens or something mundane' is going to almost always land on 'something mundane'.
"I suggest thinking for yourself instead."
This is the statement of the true conspiracy theorist:
"Don't believe the evidence in front of you! 'Think for yourself' and 'Make up your own reality!'"
- BluSyn 5y agoI actually agree with you in general. > "Don't believe the evidence in front of you! 'Think for yourself' and 'Make up your own reality!'" I never said this. Evidence is very important. Notably Mick West offered no new "evidence", only supposition. Supposition in direct contradiction to known facts of the case (eg, other sensors, pilot reports, visual confirmations, etc). I never claimed to know the answer. But I do claim that Mick West is generating faulty conclusions derived from bad assumptions. So in this case you could make a compelling argument that Mick West is the conspiracy theorist. So we go around and around debunking the debunker who debunked the debunker. It's all a waste of oxygen.