Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That article doesn't disprove a microwave attack at all, it just says there is no known public evidence that matches up with what is described. I can not disprove that there is a magic man in the sky. Or a teapot revolving around the sun. [1] The burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the other way round. Yes, lack of evidence is enough to reject it. Not to mention that the claim goes against establi…
> lack of evidence is enough to reject it This is a pseudo-skeptical[1] finger in the ear reaction. There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either. All I see is a total a priori dismissal which is not good practice for either a skeptic or a scientist. Here's what would've told me that this is a good faith e…
I have debated that topic multiple times during different years. Yes, I am not fully up to date with the newest version
I you were a police man and some guy came up and claimed to be a victim of a crime and you find out the details don't add up, well that happens. Now if he came back next year with a slightly different story about the same crime, yeah that is fishy. If he constantly keeps changing his implausible story you would at some tell him to get lost for wasting police time.