Re: NASA's great conspiracy

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 10:34:37 +0200, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Malte Runz <[email protected]>:

>On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:58:50 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message 
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:24:07 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>Crashed craft retrieval cases have come out hundreds of times. ...
>>>
>>>Now, that's what I call a 'positive claim', and we all know what that
>>>entails.
>>>
>>
>>Only mainstream media followers and 'authority' followers have never heard 
>>of that. Normies.
>
>Of course I've heard the claims made before. Do you think you're the
>only kook on the internet?
>
>
>>>> ... Upgrade your
>>>>sources.
>>>
>>>Name one.
>>>
>>
>>Of course you don't know any except the mainstream info suppressing ones.
>
>I can't possibly know what /your/ sources are. Von Däniken? Alex
>Jones? Random Dude on Rumor Mill? Why don't you want to tell me?
>
>
>>>And no, don't wiggle your way out the usual way, suggesting
>>>I'm too lazy to find one myself.
>>>
>>
>>You are lazy, two minute Google result believer.
>
>Wiggle wiggle wiggle.
>
>>>
>>>Also, this is not about what my
>>>sources have to say, it's all about /your/ sources.
>>>
>>
>>But your sources are lying/suppressing crap. That's the real issue.
>
>You're the one making the claim, therefore you provide the evidence.
>This can't be a new concept to you.
>
>
>>>So, do you have an 'upgraded source' that provides evidence for the
>>>retrieval of a crashed craft created by an alien race?
>>>
>>
>>I have plenty ...
>
>So you say, but are unable to provide any. I call your bluff... again.
>
>> ... but you will never search for yourself and switch. ...
>
>I can find hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same shit
>you do, all claiming to have the evidence. Grainy images of out of
>focus gray blobs, un-named specialists and insiders spilling the
>beans, ancient wisdom, inter stellar revelations, anecdotal evidence
>of abductions, and of course, 'They are hiding the truth from us'.
>
>Understand that I'm interested in learning what /you/ have found and
>where you found it. 
>
>
>> ... You're not 
>>interested.
>
>Of course I'm interested. I ask you for an answer every time. What
>evidence have /you/ seen?
>
>
>>>My sole point is to expose you as a liar, and every time you fail to
>>>provide a source for your claims my point is proven.
>>>
>>
>>No, ...
>
>Yes. Did you, or didn't you, provide a source? You didn't. Instead you
>evaded my questions exactly the way I predicted you would.
>
>(snip the wiggle wiggle wiggle.) 
>
It's not very nice to make fun of the cognitively
"challenged". But I admit it can be fun... ;-)
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov