Anyone trying to invalidate the embalmers vs exploring their collective findings is not interested in truth. If the deniers were interested in truth, they would have to acknowledge that these embalmers are in an extremely rare position of specific expertise, that their collective shock has powerful meaning. That their findings and reacti…
Anyone trying to invalidate the embalmers vs exploring their collective findings is not interested in truth. If the deniers were interested in truth, they would have to acknowledge that these embalmers are in an extremely rare position of specific expertise, that their collective shock has powerful meaning. That their findings and reactions cannot be denied only explored. The embalmers have discovered shocking evidence. The only question now is why does this shocking evidence exist? Vs let’s debunk the embalmers as witnesses. They cannot be debunked as witnesses. So the debunkers define themselves as unreliable and dismissible. This is naked truth. So simple even a child could understand it.
Anyone trying to invalidate the embalmers vs exploring their collective findings is not interested in truth. If the deniers were interested in truth, they would have to acknowledge that these embalmers are in an extremely rare position of specific expertise, that their collective shock has powerful meaning. That their findings and reactions cannot be denied only explored. The embalmers have discovered shocking evidence. The only question now is why does this shocking evidence exist? Vs let’s debunk the embalmers as witnesses. They cannot be debunked as witnesses. So the debunkers define themselves as unreliable and dismissible. This is naked truth. So simple even a child could understand it.