Perhaps there are links and i've missed them or perhaps we could be furnished with them if i havent, but from my experience, the first thing a person does when they are presenting a scientific case like the professors and dr's mentioned recently in this thread is they sumbit a journal article to a creditable scientific journal for peer review.

They dont just put up a pdf on their website.

Why have these 'leading experts' not followed simple peer review processes which would validate their findings almost immediately?

I'm sure the Journal of Nanotechnology would be very eager to feature their work, it could lead to a nobel prize.

I have noticed your noise level vastly reduced with the implants case, care to elaberate? or give your skeptical viewpoint.

Another measure of logic for you Andrew!

The discosure project has over 500 high ranking miltary, poloticians , pilots , police and DR's and Profs on board all giving evidence backing my claims up.

on the other side you gave cecil adams 'straightdope' giving evidence to prove me wrong but when I give a better credential whitness testimony you dismiss it. That is (A) not fair (B)debunking tactics.

Your not quite as bad as brewster he just writes *YOUR WRONG* bla bla with just his personal opinion which he has said over and over again .

If you look at the debate me and barnacle had there was more of a fair method going along.

I still am not convinced of your appology either as in real life neither you or brewster would have commented to me face to face the way you two did regarding the dyslexia, then clearly misqouting me? although you did make a effort to appologise. brewster did not?

The way of the keyboard warriers I suppose

Any way my offer stands on a case by case thread as this has become saturated as ufolgy is vast and does have a lot of crap that requires filtering. I would accept AndrewRs involvment however brewster naw!

I stand by what I said and I would have said exactly the same if you were spouting your evidence to my face.


The only sensible thing you've said in the whole thread.

You are the most self-deluded person I have ever come across on the internet. And I've argued with Welformed.

Good luck Jonny Wishbone, you need it.

You not taking this seriously.

just to recap brewster thaought he was being smart with a fake qoutation but i will fix for you.

As for your earlier comments disgusting, non constructive just looking for a fight, all being a keboard fight.

I really dont think you would say boo to a 5ft 11 13.5 stone fit as a fiddle guy nope you wouldnt.


As for the 'wishbone' name what is the reference assosiated with ?

As for the luck I dont think I need it at the age of 26 im finacially secure own a modern good size property earn a good salary and play with stocks and shares to finance my GTR my life is great.

I wish you the best of luck Brewster 'Beanstalk' I will provide you with the reference http://support.beanstalkapp.com/customer/portal/articles/68102-integrating-with-harvest

enjoy

Crikey, is this what it's come to? Jonny, as I told you when I replied to your PM, I'm really not interested in comparing vital statistics with you in person and as such I must again respectfully decline your offer of punching me until I believe your "evidence," but FWIW I'm taller, heavier and only 4 years older. I'd wager my salary is over twice yours too.

If you're doing well then good for you, but it is entirely in spite of believing this ridiculous rubbish, not because you are enlightened.

Honestly, the Billy Big-Bollocks routine really doesn't do your already untenable position any favours.

My viewpoint is that Barnacle is far more expert in those matters than I, an he tore your case to shreds. Why do you need me to get involved as well?



What is?



And we're back to 'credible' witnesses, again.

Let me be absolutely clear on this - there exists NO evidence of alien visitation that stands up to any sort of scrutiny at all. Anybody who claims to have such evidence is either:

- Not intellectually capable of understanding what evidence is.
- Dishonest
- Suffering from mental health issues.

Somebody who was sane, credible and honest would go through the proper scientific process of having their claim validated.

As you keep trotting out people you claim are credible than that narrows them down to being dishonest or mad. I really don't think it's a valuable exercise for us to speculate who is which ... well, other than Bob Lazar, who's clearly dishonest.



Would you like me to gather some credible witnesses to prove my apology was real?

Actually, as I've held 'top secret' security clearance that must make me pretty credible, so you must be wrong.

Ok, thread over.

Sorry, but enough's enough.