Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

You suffer from the same fatal flaw as all conspiracy nuts. Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is not others to prove that your theories are not true. The burden of proof lies with you - to prove that the theories you present are true.

This is how conspriacy crackpots trap people - in viscious illogical cycles of reasoning. It is simple to create a series of events, each of which by itself and together have some probability of happening (albeit highly unlikely), and then say "prove it didnt happen". Inevitably, this series of events will no doubt involve the conspirators, and thus any real evidence of the events has been 'destroyed' or 'covered up by the government'. This makes it impossible to disprove the events, and the conspiracy nut then thinks they proven their point.

For example: UFOs landed on earth in 4000BC. Prove me wrong. If you can't, then I will say its true.

Try and prove that wrong - Can you say that UFOs and aliens dont exists? well, you could.. but you can't prove the negative. Ok, so lets say aliens exist. Now prove to me they didnt land in 4000BC. You can't, it's impossible. Now I say that these aliens built the pyramids.

There ya go. Aliens landed in 4000BC and built the pyramids and you cant prove me wrong, therefore Im right. It IS possible that this happened (I cannot logically argue that this is impossible, I openly admit it), and Im gonna say that it did happen because the pyramids are os complex and normal egyptians couldnt have built them without help from ET. It is a plausible theory.