2752254

Bullshit Detector!!

I’ve been working hard developing my bullshit detector…. Let me explain.  Lately I’ve been very deep in thought…. For a large part of my time in recent months, I’ve been questioning what I believe and whether it really is true or not.

How and why do you believe what you believe?  How do you know if it’s true or not? Does it even matter??

These are the questions I’ve been asking myself and cross referencing every view and opinion I’ve had.  To tell you the truth I can be quite gullible at times and there have been certain things I have considered true that I now know to not be true.

In this day and age, information is absolutely everywhere. We can google search a phrase about anything and be inundated with tons of information from blogs and other websites. Then of course we have the traditional forms of media outside of the internet the likes of newspapers and television.

If you want to find out about anything, it’s available at the click of a button.  As good as this might be, the problem comes when you hear conflicting information from these sources or you hear one side contradicting another. Conventional wisdom VS conspiracy theories for example.  We can end up lost in not knowing who to believe and who is right. When we don’t know who is actually right we tend to go towards our feelings. How do we feel about the two sources? Which one seems the most sincere and authentic? Which source is most congruent with the things we were taught to believe as a child?

Information travels so quickly and is so readily available. So we naturally have less time to take it all in. Therefore, we tend to make snap decisions on who to believe and that tends to be based more and more on feeling rather than reason. I think this is why conspiracy theories seem to be on the increase (again that might not be fact, just merely my feeling haha).  Many of us are becoming more and more sceptical of conventional wisdom as anyone can now publish conflicting data and make it look authentic whether it’s actual truth or complete hogwash.  If we have a certain amount of distrust in government, or the general opinion of the masses, we’ll naturally gravitate towards data that is at odds with that. If we tend to trust conventional wisdom and naively believe that, “If it’s in the paper, it must be true!” then we’re going to agree with whatever the majority say and is most publicised. So, who do we actually know is right? In other words who is bullshitting? How do you become a bullshit detector??

Well my answer to that is by looking to the original source of the data stated.  So for example, imagine the news, or a blog, or a conspiracy theorist, or someone claiming they’re a scientist has said that we’re at the brink of another ice age and presents ‘scientific data’ to ‘prove it’. Then don’t just take their word for it, check this data. See where they got it from. Read the literature they got it from. Is it a peer reviewed published article, written by specialists in their respective fields?  In other words was this source written and peer reviewed by climatologists? Or by a meteorologist? Both might be scientists, but one is very obviously the specialist on climate and one really isn’t!  If it isn’t then it’s bullshit! If it is then read the actual article and see if what is says, is congruent with what the news, blog or conspiracy theorist has actually stated. Very often these things are taken grossly out of context in order to sell more news. They often come back with conflicting data months later saying, ‘scientists got it wrong,’ when in fact the news got it wrong because the news stated something that was against what scientist’s were saying in the first place.

“But why should we trust scientists?” I hear some of you cry! Well when it comes to peer reviewed articles, you will find that in order for an article to be published they have to go through a huge amount of ‘review’ amongst specialists in the field that the specific paper is actually talking about.  It has to go through numerous cross referencing to see how legitimate the evidence presented in the paper actually is.  If there are faults found in how the evidence is collected then the article simply doesn’t get published.  Of course no system is perfect and is subject to human error. There are occasions when mistakes do creep into peer reviewed papers but you will find these are a vast minority. It is safe to say that information in peer reviewed literature isn’t fabricated. If it was then it would mean that other data compiled in other peer reviewed papers that agree with the paper of another, would also have to be fabricated.  Taken a step further as far as scientific evidence is concerned, if scientists are compiling data that is on the whole fabricated and it is being published, then how do we explain the fact that we have technology that works?? How do you explain the leaps in technology we’ve had from the distant past to recent times?

At the end of the day if you are to trust a source as truth, you had better trust the source that is based on the strongest most heavily reviewed evidence.

“But I don’t want to go through checking every little bit of data! I don’t have the time!!” I hear another group of you cry! Well to be honest, on most occasions you don’t have to.  I think generally it is better to at least err on the side of conventional wisdom with most things, even if it’s unfashionable in this day and age haha. If someone tells you something that contradicts conventional wisdom, then it is not your job to take what they say and spend lots of time cross referencing everything to check how legitimate their assertion is. The onus is in fact on them to show you proof that their information and views are correct. If they can’t do that, then assume bullshit! If they do present you with data, then cross reference it to see how legitimate it is.

“But surely we should be openminded??” Well yes, but being open minded does not mean believing everything you hear just based on assumption, or because the person stating it appears to be an authority in your mind. It should be based on solid evidence. Many people are too mentally lazy to do this, believing simply what is fed to them, or just mindlessly walking around in their own bubble not thinking about the world around them at all.  This makes them no better than zombies and that is exactly what my album Lord of the Dead is about.

SUPPORT LORD LAV: https://www.patreon.com/lordlav
Free Music: http://lordlav.com/free-music/
Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/user/Lavvi
Website: http://lordlav.com/
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/lord-lav
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lordlav/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lordlav/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/lordlav

Click SUBSCRIBE to receive Lord Lav’s Blog Post via Email;

Benchmark Email


Powered by Benchmark Email

Also click on the picture below to download my free ‘Learn How to Rap‘ eBook;

………………AND, for those that like to bang on about 9/11 I recommend this one.  This is part 2 of a 7 part video series.  Chose part 2 because it’s specific to the nano-thermite argument.

Share Button
Posted in Other Shilly Shizzle, Politics and tagged , , , , .

8 Comments

  1. “I think generally it is better to at least err on the side of conventional wisdom with most things, even if it’s unfashionable in this day and age haha. If someone tells you something that contradicts conventional wisdom, then it is not your job to take what they say and spend lots of time cross referencing everything to check how legitimate their assertion is. The onus is in fact on them to show you proof that their information and views are correct. If they can’t do that, then assume bullshit! If they do present you with data, then cross reference it to see how legitimate it is.”

    This is wrong because The Truth is what it is – it doesn’t become The Truth from the results of a poll, phone-in vote or the opinion of some talent show judges.

    So called “conventional wisdom” pretty much never considers the concept of intentional deception!
    Remember, according to our authorities, in our infinite universe there MAY be intelligent life out there, but officially there’s been no evidence of it!

    Still waiting on those WMDs to be found as well.

    • There may be intelligent life out there and there is no evidence to prove either way. There are of course a lot of things we don’t know. This is why we should always remain curious and look for answers and be sceptical at the same time. We don’t know what happened before ‘The Big Bang’ for example. But there is substantial evidence back up what we do know. Evolution for example.

      Do you not trust scientists or people that are specialists in their field? If so why not? What legitimate evidence have you got to lead you to think otherwise? Who do you choose to trust and why?

    • Let me just clarify something. I’m not suggesting that we don’t question ‘conventional wisdom’. We absolutely should! The world was once considered flat. Thanks to the questioning of conventional wisdom and much evidence based research, we now know that the world is round and we now know the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.

      What I am saying is if you are to question ‘conventional wisdom’, then you should do it in the right way. So for example if someone says that the planet is getting hotter due to CO2, then that should be investigated to see if it is true or not. If you are a specialist in that field (in this case a climatologist) then by all means conduct the research yourself. Then have the data peer reviewed amongst other qualified specialists in that field. If your data is peer reviewed and published then it’s safe to say the assertion you made in that paper is legitimate, whether it agrees or disagrees with what someone says.

      If on the other hand you are not a climatologist then you have to trust the conventional wisdom of numerous other climatologists and what they have said in their peer reviewed data and literature, that is where we should naturally place our trust. Where you should ‘err’ if you like.

      I didn’t say ‘blindly follow whatever conventional wisdom says.’ I said, ‘at very least err on the side of conventional wisdom….’ and I meant that more for those who are not in a qualified position to conduct research into the topic themselves. So in the example I made above, if you’re not a climatologist, then you’re not qualified to conduct the research yourself. Therefore if someone makes an assertion that goes against the ‘conventional wisdom’ of climatologists, for example, ‘The planet is not getting hotter and global warming is a hoax….’ then the onus is on them to present legitimate peer reviewed data to convince you of it. Not the other way around! If they can’t present you with data, then assume they’re taking out their arse. If they claim to be a specialist in the subject, check their credentials. Are they climatologists? If they can present data, see how their data holds up as stated.

      As the axiom in science goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, the more incredible the claim like, ‘Barak Obama is a space alien!’ The more evidence you will require. Yes, if someone has evidence to prove this to be fact, then one should be open minded enough to review the evidence and to check how legitimate it is, but if someone can’t do that then you are not being naive or close minded by saying that their claim has no clout and might as well be considered complete bullshit! 🙂

  2. Evolution is the biggest comedy bullshit story fed to the populace. It also happens to be the cornerstone of modern science.
    Needless to say, there is plenty of evidence that points to human beings as the result of genetic engineering of extra terrestrial origin.

    As for ET evidence on Earth:
    -Ancient cave paintings of UFOs and space men
    -All indiginous tribes having stories of ET visitors
    -Medieval paintings of flying saucers
    -Medieval accounts of crop circles
    -The declassified documents around Roswell
    -11 million eye witnesses and counting of ET and UFO phenomenon across the world to date
    -The Disclosure Project of 2001
    -Dr Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who went to the moon, stating clearly ETs exist

    It depends on how you define a ‘specialist in their field’. I wouldn’t trust the many that are bought off by the large corporations – or even worse, the intelligence agencies. This is why I’ve yet to meet an aerospace engineer who believes the official authority narrative on the events of ‘9/11’ (day first then month FFS you yanks!). You don’t need to be a specialist to understand two plane impacts can’t make 3 skyscrapers collapse in the EXACT same way. What really happened of course is open to hypothesis as much of Truth is covered up by the state and the collusive mainstream media. The facts remain though, the official story is BS. This is useful for the lay person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

    Thus as with Climategate, peer reviewing is not necessarily an action allied with finding The Truth.

    Extraordinary claims are only that if you were that narrow minded in the first place. Remember – consensus does not make Truth!
    For years Jimmy Savile was a loved entertainer in the mainstream public eye. However, for years David Icke had written that Savile was a child abuser, even writing that on the day of Savile’s death. Time has elapsed and who was right? The mainstream media or the individual with Truth?
    Savile was a good friend of the Royals. You know that won’t get looked into in the press. In fact, a good video exposing the paedophiliac activities of Prince Philip’s family and other despicable behaviour of the monarchy recently got deleted off of YouTube.

    • “Evolution is the biggest comedy bullshit story fed to the populace. It also happens to be the cornerstone of modern science.

      Needless to say, there is plenty of evidence that points to human beings as the result of genetic engineering of extra terrestrial origin.”

      That is an extraordinary claim. I’d love to see this evidence and where it is from. Why is it more valid than evidence any real scientist can produce? Can you point to any legitimate biologists and geologists and so forth that agree with this claim?

      “As for ET evidence on Earth:
      -Ancient cave paintings of UFOs and space men”
      Does that constitute as substantial evidence?

      “-All indiginous tribes having stories of ET visitors.”

      Really? I didn’t know you were such an expert on indigenous tribes? Are you not just speculating there? Even so, does that constitute substantial evidence? One could argue that ancient paintings and stories from indigenous tribes are nothing more than musing upon the sky from people that don’t have the same knowledge of the stars and planets as an astronomer or astrological physicist. Does that make their claims more or less valid??

      “-Medieval paintings of flying saucers.”
      Bump

      “-Medieval accounts of crop circles”

      Sounds interesting and by all means show me, but how legitimate are these ‘medieval accounts’ and ‘stories from indigenous tribes’? The best evidence you have there for anything out of the points you just made are cave paintings. Do you think that makes a legitimate argument?

      “-11 million eye witnesses and counting of ET and UFO phenomenon across the world to date”

      How do you know that figure is accurate, where did you get that from? The argument you are making there sounds a little like the argument you made towards me i.e.

      “This is wrong because The Truth is what it is – it doesn’t become The Truth from the results of a poll, phone-in vote or the opinion of some talent show judges.”

      By the way I agree, that doesn’t make it truth. Truth is truth and the closest way to get to it is by using good forms of measurement and finding legitimate evidence. If so many people have seen aliens in space then why are there not any legitimate photographs to prove it? Have you seen one?

      “-The Disclosure Project of 2001”
      Don’t know about it please explain?

      “-Dr Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who went to the moon, stating clearly ETs exist”
      Oh, so you at least believe humans landed on the moon? Or am I being assumptive here?

      “It depends on how you define a ‘specialist in their field’.”

      Well, someone widely recognised as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is an accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.
      What is David Icke a specialist in?? What makes him a specialist?

      “I wouldn’t trust the many that are bought off by the large corporations – or even worse, the intelligence agencies.”

      Are you talking about scientists? If so, how do you know they’re bought off by corporations? What evidence do you have for this? You’re assuming a huuuuge amount of people are keeping quiet for this conspiracy to not be found out. If the majority of them are human beings how do you expect them to not make human mistakes and slip up and give the game away?

      Are you saying peer reviewed papers are fabricated? Can you cite one and let me know how it has been fabricated? By all means let me know the DOI of this paper(s).

      If this was a widespread problem surely there would by now be a revolt of honest researchers? Or are we all that easily corruptible and easy to keep silent beyond the comfort of our homes in front of the computer? In which case, what makes you of such fine moral standing compared to them? Are you really saying most of them are dishonest? If science is based on fabricated results, then research that seeks to replicate results must also be fabricated. And other researchers must be fabricating observations that validate predictions made in these phoney papers. And the researchers who replicate these successful predictions are also fabricating their results. Are you saying everything we know is wrong. If so how do we manage to create technology that works? Or are you asserting all technology that we use is not created by us? Do you believe that the internet, computers we are typing on and pretty much all technology beyond mud huts isn’t a product of scientific study and is in fact a hoax?

      How come not one single person has exposed these fake results by commenting or critiquing in the scientific journals in which they are published?

      “This is why I’ve yet to meet an aerospace engineer who believes the official authority narrative on the events of ‘9/11’ (day first then month FFS you yanks!).”

      How many aerospace engineers have you met? Are you saying that no aerospace engineers or at least the majority of them don’t believe in the official narrative? Then surely the SPEEA as a group have something to say about this!

      “You don’t need to be a specialist to understand two plane impacts can’t make 3 skyscrapers collapse in the EXACT same way.”

      That’s a bit like saying, ‘You don’t need to be a specialist to understand that a boat made of metal can’t float….’ Your point is nothing more than a speculation. Also, how do you know, skyscrapers don’t get hit by planes that often 🙂

      Of course the situation needed to be investigated but there has not been any valid evidence to prove ‘the official statement was BS’ after 11 years.

      “What really happened of course is open to hypothesis as much of Truth is covered up by the state and the collusive mainstream media.”

      Watergate and Iran Contra were both covered up by the state. These situations involved far less people yet they still got found out and it didn’t take that long for it to be exposed either.

      “The facts remain though, the official story is BS. This is useful for the lay person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

      I need to watch the video soon as I get a chance. Thanks for sharing it!

      Just for the record Noam Chomsky, a man who’s views I believe you respect doesn’t agree with the 9/11 conspiracy either. As Noam very well says, why blame Saudi’s? Why not Iraqis?;

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrEDo9ChSdQ

      “Thus as with Climategate, peer reviewing is not necessarily an action allied with finding The Truth.”

      If you are essentially saying that the majority of scientists and peer reviewed papers are fabricated, please let me know the DOI of a fabricated peer reviewed scientific paper. I would be interested to see a scientific paper that had been faked, and so would the editors of the journal that published it, and the institution that employs the researcher. Researchers who fake their results lose their reputations, their jobs and their livelihoods. Or do you actually think this is the other way around? …..Proof!

      “Extraordinary claims are only that if you were that narrow minded in the first place.”

      You’re narrow minded if you’re not willing to look at the evidence presented from both sides. Or if you’re unwilling to say you’re wrong and change your mind in spite of evidence proving you are wrong.

      “Remember – consensus does not make Truth!”

      I agree, but conspiracy or a disagreement with an official statement does not constitute truth either, surely you agree with that? Especially if the conspiracy theory fails to deliver any decent evidence as proof!

      Are you stating that you know better than what a scientist says about something they actually specialise in? Or are you saying you just don’t trust them? What reason and evidence have you got to not trust them? Is all technology a complete hoax? Do only reptilians create technology?

      “Savile was a loved entertainer in the mainstream public eye. However, for years David Icke had written that Savile was a child abuser, even writing that on the day of Savile’s death. Time has elapsed and who was right? The mainstream media or the individual with Truth?”

      David Icke had also once stated that the cliffs of Kent would be underwater by Christmas.
      He wasn’t the only person to speculate that Jimmy Saville was a pedophile. Are you honestly saying this is a valid reason to believe what he says about the world over a climatologist, or physicist or other scientist that specialises in their field? Can you present proof of David’s reptilian assertions? Have you even seen one? I’d love to see a picture!

      “Jimmy Savile was a good friend of the Royals. You know that won’t get looked into in the press. In fact, a good video exposing the paedophiliac activities of Prince Philip’s family and other despicable behaviour of the monarchy recently got deleted off of YouTube.”

      Really? How do you actually know this? Have you seen the video personally? Surely you’d have taken the time to find a way to record something of that magnitude so you can present it to the world in case it were to be deleted off of youtube?? If you didn’t manage it someone else must have! Why can’t we see it?? There are other places to post videos beyond youtube. Please show it to me or show me where I can find it!

  3. You ask many questions and make many assumptions.
    That is time you could spend researching Truth. Perhaps you need help. So be it…
    I will address a few points that I can, with finer detail another time.
    Yes, if you’ve grown up and just followed the mainsteam then it could be said that everything you know is wrong. This is only extraordinary if you’ve not researched outside the mainstream or read about the effective ways to deceive the masses that are utilised everyday by your rulers.

    “Scientists confirm ET genes in DNA”
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/26/01340.html

    “Science Is Wrong”
    http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_sciencewrong.pdf

    More on the above explained in detail
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8_tQmZycA&playnext=1&list=PLC9ADE9C8336266FD&feature=results_video

    May take you time to get round to it.
    You seem to assume ancient people just had fantasies about celestial events and didn’t understand them.
    Ironically, that’s untrue of them but true of today’s humans. No engineering (in the mainstream) TODAY can replicate the great pyramids or the monoliths in Peru etc. South American ziggurats line up accurately with the sun at equinoxes; the pyramids and sphinx in Egypt line up with constellations… not bad for supposed primitive dumb crazy savages (the typical Western view of foreign cultures).

    I’ll leave climate fraud for next time.

    As an engineering graduate with a masters in mechanical engineering I have found the official account of what happened on 9/11 to not match up with the principles of materials science, thermodynamics and solid mechanics. The aerospace engineers I mix with do not agree with what happened either. There is a group you may have heard of, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, comprised of thousands of members who question the narrative of the events that day. Are these not experts in their field?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

    You: “That’s a bit like saying, ‘You don’t need to be a specialist to understand that a boat made of metal can’t float….’ Your point is nothing more than a speculation. ”
    No, and don’t turn away from your own deduction skills.

    Noam Chomsky to my knowledge is not an engineer, pilot or architect. And the US did blame it on Iraqis eventually.

  4. You: “Really? How do you actually know this? Have you seen the video personally? Surely you’d have taken the time to find a way to record something of that magnitude so you can present it to the world in case it were to be deleted off of youtube?? If you didn’t manage it someone else must have! Why can’t we see it?? There are other places to post videos beyond youtube. Please show it to me or show me where I can find it!”

    Yes it was a mistake to assume it would be left on a subsidiary site of the NSA controlled Google. I did watch the first half, it was very good.
    However, some research shows that it’s on a DVD. An excerpt of the transcript can be found here, two pages: http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news559_zk.html

    You: “David Icke had also once stated that the cliffs of Kent would be underwater by Christmas.”
    Citation if you please.
    PS: I recommend you read a David Icke book from cover to cover before criticising what you don’t know or understand. Stands to reason eh. There’s some in local libraries. I’ll happily lend you one even.

    • “You ask many questions and make many assumptions.”

      Yes I ask many questions of someone that makes such bold and extraordinary claims without any legitimate evidence to back them up!-(potentially excluding what you just showed me in the last email). Making accusations that basically state that every peer reviewed scientific paper that backs up evolution from the numerous scientific specialists in their respective fields is fabricated nonsense is a bold and extraordinary claim! I don’t think that I’m unfair in saying that or asking many questions of you.

      “Yes, if you’ve grown up and just followed the mainsteam then it could be said that everything you know is wrong. This is only extraordinary if you’ve not researched outside the mainstream or read about the effective ways to deceive the masses that are utilised everyday by your rulers.”

      “As an engineering graduate with a masters in mechanical engineering….. (i.e. YOU)”

      Do you see the inconsistency in your argument here??

      One minute you seem to essentially state that peer review is not a reliable source to come to any scientific findings and that everything we know in the mainstream is wrong and untrustworthy which of cause means that what scientists are taught is wrong and in order for them to reach a level of any mainstream merit they need to basically lie or be dishonest or pass false or fabricated facts. And of course all other papers put forth for peer review that get published that back up such evidence also must be fabricated, and all forms of measurement they use to come to their data and findings are also fabricated….

      Then you state that you have a masters in mechanical engineering as if it is a serious credential that gives you ability to deduct a more accurate hypothesis on 9/11.

      Your masters degree would cease to have any merit if not for peer reviewed science. I come back to my same question, if everything we know is wrong, then how come we have technology that works?

      If mainstream science is fabricated as you seem to be saying, then why is mainstream engineering not fabricated? Or is it just a part of science during a certain time? I’m guessing you didn’t earn your masters on your own in a basement? I’m assuming for you to have gained this masters you had to earn it from the mainstream in order for it to be a legitimate credential worth noting? Or did reptilians help you out? Exactly the same can be said for “the thousands of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” and “The aerospace engineers I(you) mix with….” What merit do they have? Why should we pay attention to them as you seem to be asserting if everything they have learnt or at least the vast majority of it is fabricated??

      “Scientists confirm ET genes in DNA”
      http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/26/01340.html

      “Science Is Wrong”
      http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_sciencewrong.pdf

      More on the above explained in detail
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du8_tQmZycA&playnext=1&list=PLC9ADE9C8336266FD&feature=results_video

      Thanks for these sources, I haven’t had a chance to check them properly but I most certainly will! As a side note if these sources happen to answer my questions and debunk what what I’m saying, I’m willing to retract any of my statements. I will say that by you citing Lloyd Pye as an example does lead me to raise an eyebrow though. Anyone that states that Bigfoot exists leads me to raise an eyebrow haha. Am I wrong with that statement? Please correct me if I am. Do any of the sources you have presented me with show any proof that a scientific peer reviewed paper has been fabricated?

      “I’ll leave climate fraud for next time.”

      Yep look forward to it 🙂

      “That is time you could spend researching Truth. Perhaps you need help. So be it…”

      “PS: I recommend you read a David Icke book from cover to cover before criticising what you don’t know or understand. Stands to reason eh. There’s some in local libraries. I’ll happily lend you one even.”

      Why should I be obliged to expand my limited knowledge of David Icke and his theories when the best advocate I know for him (you!) can’t conduct a debate about science and conspiracy without solid evidence? (i.e. proof that the information in a published peer reviewed article has actually been fabricated-assuming what you’ve presented me with doesn’t show it-apologies if it does!) AND more to the point can’t conduct a debate without contradicting himself??? On this same basis why should I be obliged spend time looking beyond peer reviewed scientific literature and put my trust in a Lloyd Pye for example?-Again upon solid evidence I’m willing to retract anything I’ve said 🙂

      “Yes it was a mistake to assume it would be left on a subsidiary site of the NSA controlled Google. I did watch the first half, it was very good.
      However, some research shows that it’s on a DVD. An excerpt of the transcript can be found here, two pages: http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news559_zk.html

      Interesting, I’ll give it a thorough read. I must ask though – Regardless of all that, none of this proves your claims for mainstream science being fabricated!!

      On a slightly lighter note, despite my tone, please know that I do love you mate! It’s just right now, when it comes to your notions of science peer review I think you’re full of shit 🙂

      P.S
      For the record, I’m not saying aliens don’t exist. Based on the sheer vastness of space and our present scope of it, for someone to say there is no intelligent life would be like taking a cup and scooping some water from the sea and then saying, ‘Well I don’t sea any whales, they must not exist.’ Nothing in peer reviewed scientific literature states this to my knowledge.

      P.P.S

      Great debate squire! Loving it!! Thanks for the sources, I’ll check them out, then write back!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *