On May 5, 1:39*am, Krypsis wrote:
On 5/05/2011 10:45 AM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/4/2011 5:40 PM, Scout wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/2011 5:18 PM, Scout wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/2011 3:51 PM, Scout wrote:

...
The comments and thoughts of those without firm educations in the
fields involved are just babbling morons ...

I accept you can't support your claim as called for and instead
produce
a website that relies upon appearances and unsupported assertions.

And another debunker shows he has no proof for his claims.

If you bother to look, there is a multitude of links on the left which
deal will most aspects.

Sorry, you were asked to present your best evidence. You posted a link
presumably to the best evidence that exists. I found claims about what
it appeared to be and a lot of unsupported assertions. If this is the
best that exists....then there is hardly any reason to look around
because everything else can only be worse.

It would take a learned person days, perhaps weeks to review them and
follow up, with other links, to gain an education.

Sorry, that's why I asked you to present your best evidence. Presumably
you have done all this and can point out a specific detail that proves
you have a case.

Instead you couldn't do so. Now if you've spent days or even weeks on
just this site (and presumably months looking at others) then you
should
know where to find the best single example of proof.

You failed. So why should I waste my time looking around for something
better when YOU couldn't find it?

The uneducated need only moments, of course ... how to you think they
got their fine educations?

Takes me only a moment to look at the lack of any conclusive proof in
your BEST evidence, and decide you don't have a case.

Maybe you should have picked a better piece of evidence, but then
that's
what you were asked to do. If appearances and unsupported assertions is
the BEST evidence you can produce, then why should I waste more time
with it, or you?

So to sum it up.

You were asked to present your best evidence.
Your best evidence consisted of claims about appearances and
unsupported
assertions
Your best evidence fails to get off the pad as there is no proof of
anything presented.

Conclusion, if your best is this bad, then there is no need to bother
with your conspiracy theories.

If you wished to carry on conversation, you should have behaved like
an engineer instead of child starting out with fraudulent data ...

I did. I asked you to prove your case with your best evidence.....you
were the one that failed to do so.

You were the one that asserted credentials were somehow relevant to the
facts presented.

You were the one that made claims you couldn't back up.

it can only go downhill from there as your arguments and proof get
more and more preposterous!

Well, I've seen your type come, and I've seen them go, and NONE could
make any reasonable effort to prove their case on a specific item. They
either threw out a website (like you did) and expect me to research the
whole site and all the claims in the hopes there was something that
supported your claims. IOW, doing your homework. Or they would produce a
massive multitude of items in the hope that the shear volume would
somehow carry their claims. Yet when one item was picked out and proven
to be false, incomplete, inconsistent, or otherwise failed to prove the
claims made about it, their only response was to simply point to
something else and claim that I hadn't disproven everything. As if their
ability to make their case depended upon others showing the flaws in
their case rather than producing a solid case from the start.

Say hi to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David
B. Benson when you see them. I am sure they will now take up your
argument with you!

Damn, got your ass kicked by that many people and you still haven't
figured out how to present a better case.

Makes it sound like any attitude you got at the start was perfectly
justified given you have a history of making claims you can't support.

... plonked in this thread too ...

So run away since you can't be bothered to prove that even a single
point of yours is actually true and contradicts the official findings.

IOW, you can't support your case even in one detail.

As I said, the links on the one website, alone, should have kept a REAL
engineer busy a month ... especially taking into consideration that a
REAL engineer would have written the architects, engineers and
scientists, gotten samples and confirmed what he was able ... you my
fraudulent little "engineer" are a FRAUD!

.... GLOBAL SERVER PLONK ENACTED! WARNING WILL ROBINSON! ...

ROFLOL!!!

Regards,
JS

hey, you plonked him, remember? That means you shouldn't have read his
response. The fact that you did read his response, and reply, means that
all your "plonking" just makes you a ******. You really don't filter out
anyone as you have an insane desire to see what unfolds out of the
bullcrap you post.

Krypsis

ps Don't forget to plonk me too! * ROFLOL

Johnny KQQK does not know what plonking actually means. he just types
the word "plonk" because he's seen his many betters do that. He thinks
it's a magical incantation, just like his cartoon magic "controlled
demolition" delusions.