[taxesareforever]

Why am I not surprised since you have already stated that you would not believe an eyewitness account. I made no such statement. You are again making false claims about me with no basis in fact.

Oh, but you did. It's a good thing you got all those talking points right at hand because you would soon lose your way as you have now done. Here's something for you to comtemplate. If a person was to tell you that they had witnessed a nuclear explosion would you pursue seeking out all their evidence or would you turn to science and try to prove how, when and where it happened? I do believe I know what your answer will be. I would request further explanation of their claim. Without any detail beyond the initial claim, I would have no means of an evaluation.

You said it. Now live with it.

[Dimensio]

You said it. Now live with it.

To claim that requiring additional context is requied for evaluation of a vague statement is equal to rejecting eyewitness accounts entirely is illogical. There is no logical basis for your conclusion.

[taxesareforever]

Without any detail beyond the initial claim, I would have no means of an evaluation.

You are the one being illogical. You also are the one demanding more and more detail for any claim that goes against your theories. In your world 1+1+=2 needs evaluation to determine the accuracy of the problem. It's no wonder that so many agree that scientist findings are skewed to reflect their agenda. Sheeesh.