Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:

False, but nice try. 

Uh, yeah, okay, sure. keep believing that. Like I said, look up the definition of hearsay.


I know it is hard for you to believe,

but the law in courts are based on evidence. 

You're absolutely correct. However, evidence requires, amongst other things, corroboration. (sp?) By that I mean that the physical evidence must coincide with the verbal evidence (testimony) in order for the case to be considered valid. This is where your argument falls flat. You quote a person, who has spoken with a third person. This is, by any definition, hearsay. Now, if all of those 350+ people were to come forward, on their own and speak directly, and be able to identify the physical evidence before an UNBIASED audience, then you might have a case.

Why debunkers

absolutely REFUSE to look at the evidence is simple,
it makes them look like the fools they are!!  Sorry Charlie,
there is no way out of this one, the evidence is stacked
against you and your Cult of Useful Idiots.

First off, please refrain form personal insults. If you wish to discuss this in a rational manner, then using phrases such as "cult of useful idiots" does nothing for your credibility. Secondly, I am seeing zero evidence here in your statements. Only claims of evidence, nothing more.

This is where the debunkers get cooked everytime,
debunkers just say NO to scientific evidence,
and YES to tabloids.  Point in fact, the main
debunker here has admitted he is an "expert
of tabloids." Of course I am referring to the one
known as The Sludge/Sage!!

You have presented no direct scientific evidence, just statements claiming them from third party sources.