Weak.
Whatever I pasted from has a link so your argument about copypasta is moot. If it wasn't isopropanol, then it must be something else, hence, an assumption. Was it water? Gasoline? Too many assumptions lead to inductive reasoning. Remember Occam's Razor.
>The video is so poor in quality
Yet, you claimed you couldn't see "green light" qualifying the quality.
>The white balance on the camera is off, but it does not shift green light into orange light.
I thought you just said the quality was bad? Now you trust it.
>. Again you are grasping at anything to support your conspiratorial straw man
You don't understand the meaning of straw man.
> One only has to look at the "burning snow" videos that were common recently
This, is a straw man.
Weak. A lot of words to say nothing. You rebutted nothing. Believe whatever you want but just know that truth is not based on what you believe.
Yet you expect me to believe you. You have offered nothing but an opinion. "I didn't see green light, therefore, it's not luciferase" This was your ONLY rebuttal. I SHOWED you this https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153112.htm which blows your whole premise out of the water.
You lost here. Just own it and move on.
You lost here. Just own it and move on.
Whatever you have to tell yourself so you can feel like you know what you are talking about.
(post is archived)