This guys a genius. He's 100 percent correct. Anything that goes against the mainstream view of science, their narrative whatever you call it, is deemed wrong and not worth looking at.

They don't really believe in observable, repeatable evidence. It's whatever fits their worldview.

They decide what they want or think to be true, and tailor their evidence to support it. If they find evidence that goes against it, they deem it wrong, and that's it. Instead of RETHINKING THEIR HYPOTHESIS.

This guys a genius. He's 100 percent correct. Anything that goes against the mainstream view of science, their narrative whatever you call it, is deemed wrong and not worth looking at.

They don't really believe in observable, repeatable evidence. It's whatever fits their worldview.