You mean, "An analogy of a weird joke."
As usual, you decline to point out any faults, you just pretend that dismissing someone will diminish their point.
The test of an argument's strength is the ability to defend it. You are so aware of the weakness of your argument that you won't even attempt to defend it. And you've forfeited our invitations to challenge our facts.
You've yet to scrutinize ANYTHING that has been stated. Instead you feebly insist that it doesn't matter, like anyone is buying your act.
Lack of a bullet hole is a serious argument against death by gunfire, even if the person was run over by a truck. The same applies to airplanes and missiles. Its not like they failed to locate the wreckage.
You sure are raising a lot of fuss trying to rebut what ~only you~ see as an inability to defend my position.
You are so aware of the weakness of your argument that you won't even attempt to defend it.
The eyewitness position I'm defending is so strong that the gov't/CIA first went to great lengths to explain it away; -- then, having failed, they've decided to ignore it. -- Why this drives you so nuts will no doubt remain a mystery.
And you've forfeited our invitations to challenge our facts.
Sorry but your 'invitations' have proved to be little more than to a flame fest party.