In alt.alien.visitors Michael Biggs <mbiggs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
: "Kavik Kang the total moron wrote:"


: (Yet more steaming shite snipped)
:> 
:> Your basic premis is wrong. I am not comparing the great wall and UFOs. All
:> I have done is applied the exact same evidential criteria to the great wall
:> as is demanded for UFOs. Nothing more. When this is done, no evidence has
:> yet been presented for the great wall, and it's been over a decade since I
:> first thought of this. 

: But if we all know the Great Wall exists then we obviously wouldn't
: apply the same criteria as we would for UFOs cos we don't know if UFOs
: (or should I say alien spacecraft with little green aliens aboard that
: like to turn up and give kooks anal probings, cut the lips and rectums
: from cattle and crash all the time but strangely leave no evidence
: whatsoever) exist no matter what all your kooky supporters....
: Garrrry, Roberta et al claim. Would we you stupid kook.

But whatever evidence of a UFO close encounter is presented; radiation, ground
traces, collected liquids, etc. it is dismissed as not "extraordinary". . .
we have all grown up hearing and reading about the Great Wall, but I was never
given any evidence. . .knid of like Mikey with Sunday school, they talked up 
a good story but he didn't buy it. . .

: The relevance is obvious, and I believe most rational
:> serious-minded students of science would agree that this is valid...

: I believe ALL rational serious-minded students of science would agree
: that you are a feeble minded kook with no basic understanding of the
: basics of life let alone Occams Razor or anything else that requires
: brain cells.

Then prove him a kook and produce evidence of a Great Wall. . .

Garry