Replies

“You are not using common sense.

“Had I been smart enough to do what Smith says he did I would be certain to bring back evidence that it happened the way I said.”

I totally agree that Lucas Smith has not yet provided authentication for his document, but neither have denouncers provided undisputed proof of flaws or fraud. So I take a neutral stance as to its authenticity. What isn't common sense about that?

If Smith were on trial for forging a BC, I don't think he could be convicted because it can't be proved one way or the other.

Folks who libel Smith on the other hand by declaring his document is a hoax due to faulty provenance, haven't proved their case either. Are folks who declare something a hoax without proof using common sense?

Provenance, while important, as nothing to do with ultimate authentification. People tell false stories regarding how they came to possess genuine controversial articles all of the time, perhaps most of the time! That is common sense to me. I'm not saying Lucas Smith did that, but he may be protecting people that he may need to rely on in the future, for example.

I can think of a dozen features of the CPGH BC that various folks have declared “hoax” starting with the eight declared suspicious by Corsi and actual hard evidence has been found to support most of them and for the rest at least some evidence. I personally was one of the first to find the Wiki site that showed that Kenya used two distinct date formats including the one used on the BC that debunkers pounced on as evidence of a hoax.

Common sense is not overstating your evidence and holding back on libeling folks until you really have the evidence, in my book. Your mileage may vary.