it is a bit hard to carry the burden of proof when there acoustic vibrations in air they impress your eardrums but you still say you're not listening did i carry the burden of proof i did is the source verifiable it is is the statement appropriate you agree it is does the source validate the statement it does is there any reason to distrust the source i can't see one but you are welcome to pinpoint any this said it seems we both have too much time to sit on our heads and we're going to a pretty pointless discussion the likes of which i really abhor let's agree on two ground rules they are sensible and i think you will accept them stick with your points this means that if you think something and state it you'll recognize you took a hit and acknowledge refutation when refutation is produced otherwise you'll be doing the apollo hoax stunt of responding to refutation by going off into a completely different direction being refuted again resulting in new fresh and wilder claims define a threshold by which you'll accept you are wrong by this point in the discussion the items of disagreement should be clear to you and refutation of all of them will mean you are wrong right about other links to the site under dispute you seem to think you are making sort of a naughty threat about them as in one of these days i might have a look at some of them to check whether they qualify but you fail to notice that if you decree the specific site unreliable here and i am talking of reliable only the site is unreliable everywhere in wikipedia you need not bother yourself removing the links because i'll remove them myself ain't that what i did when going ballistic perhaps one hindrance with them though is that instead of hinging on your own personal sense of taste and style those other links deal with mathematics and physics abiding by the usual standards of proof that anyone with a bit of knowledge of math and physics can check i'll continue in a minute just saving