I agree with you that the presenters of that evidence stink.
But the paper is "treated as evidence" according to the rules of the world.
So if you deny it, you have to deny it with "evidence".
However, there are only those who give the "impression" that the presenter smells fishy, and there is no one who provides "evidence".They are looking at the presenter, not the evidence.
Give me "evidence to the contrary" and I'll believe it.
I believe things. Not people.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I agree with you that the presenters of that evidence stink.
But the paper is "treated as evidence" according to the rules of the world.
So if you deny it, you have to deny it with "evidence".
However, there are only those who give the "impression" that the presenter smells fishy, and there is no one who provides "evidence".They are looking at the presenter, not the evidence.
Give me "evidence to the contrary" and I'll believe it. I believe things. Not people.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Yes, so those papers would have been debunked or not debunked by "evidence to the contrary".
None of them have been overturned by "mental images."
I believe in things. Not people.