<But, why not address or rebut the factual content of my posts? The thoughtful person might well come to the conclusion that you don't because you can't.

To make a long story short, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. This is why scientists don't spend their working days trying to prove that Keebler cookies are not actually made by elves in a hollow tree, or that the world is in fact round. To waste valuable time refuting utter bullshit like this is something that is justifiable only if I find it somehow amusing, or if some poor newbie needs to be steered in the right direction.

Sometimes it's enough to just point out that the claim makes no logical sense on the face of it, and leave it at that.

Incidentally, just because calling someone a crackpot in the course of an argument is an ad hominem fallacy in the context of the subject of the argument, does not necessarily mean that this person is not, in fact, a crackpot. That's logic too. Work it out.