| Subject: Re: Witnesses Assert They Saw Aliens at U.S. Bases//Working Relations With ETs Now Decades Old! |
| From: Bob Casanova |
| Date: 11/07/2012, 18:01 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:12:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Sir Arthur CB
Wholeflaffers ASA <garymatalucci@gmail.com>:
On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
On Jul 9, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 02:26:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
On Jul 8, 10:07 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 19:39:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:
(Supposed) Witnesses Assert...three unnamed witnesses...<yadda, yadda>
Pretty much sums it up...
How about three NAMED debunkers: Casanobrain; The Traitor and VD-VAC.
You think those are names? Interesting...and it explains a
lot.
But it hardly provides names for your claimed "witnesses",
now does it? Nice attempt to tapdance, though.
Okay, are YOU happy now??
Sure, jerking your chain and watching you respond with your
usual (and B-O-O-O-RING) boilerplate irrelevancies always
gives me a laugh. Why?
The evidence is ABOVE reproach, especially to the nut-cases known as
debunkers. The debunkers credibility is about the same as any sterno-
bum, which not so coincidentally are over half of all debunkers!!! Go
figure!!
Keep it up, Artie/Gary; even though you're boring you're
still somewhat amusing.
Still waiting for those "witness" (or is that "witless"?)
names, though.
Now both bore and amuse me again; that's a good little
doobie...
Casanobrain, when the Honest Citizens of the World (HCW) want the
debunkers opinions, we shall give it you. Do you understand that
simple concept??????? Well do you, Punk!! :) I had to go Dirty
Harry on you for effect.
Seriously though, I repeat that the evidence is ABOVE reproach,
especially to the nut-cases known as debunkers. The debunkers
credibility is about the same as any meth-freak and sterno-bum, which
not so coincidentally make up well over half of all debunkers!!! Go
figure!!
Now surrender your cult!
Thanks for granting my request to both bore and amuse me,
doobie. Now about those names...?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless