Love it.
Your assertions are utterly
—untrue to the history;
—untrue to the investigations;
—untrue to the evidence;
—untrue to the state of all that currently;
—untrue to even basic logic about the basic facts of the case.
But hey—it’s quite a gift for naysayers to continually make utterly foolish assertions thoroughly ungrounded in fact or logic.
Some of us appreciate it.
I want to know what was “proven beyond reasonable doubt” at Rendlesham Forest. I want the conclusion that was “proven”; put up or shut up.