"No Spam!" wrote in message ...
John -

You're missing the point.

The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
rules of scientific evidence and logic.

They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
cover-up.

They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
do will convince them otherwise.

If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.

Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.

A Reformed Tilter

No, I understand and agree completely. Nevertheless, I think the
argument must occasionally be fought. Not to convince the hoaxer, but
to expose lurkers to the counter arguments. I know there are many
hoax debunk web sites which can serve this purpose; however, in my
experience, they tend to argue directly against the "evidence"
provided by the hoax proponents. My observation is that the indirect
evidence (political environment, technical capability, etc.) did not
permit an hoax to be performed. So, every once in a while I'll
address one of these posters to see if they have anything new,
identify counter arguments for the lurkers and to use the opportunity
to sharpen my admittedly scholarship.