[thoughtomator]

Actually there is a smoking gun and we’ve established it and you have agreed.

Look up the definition of “hoax” in the dictionary. If you say this is not a hoax, you are using the word in a way other than it is used in the English language.

“Hoax, n: An act intended to deceive or trick.”

Hoax is already confessed the moment he admitted he staged the photo of his car.

Only way to maintain it is not a hoax is to play Humpty Dumpty and decide words mean only what you want them to mean.

[Robert DeLong]

While it is true that he staged the picture, it does not disprove his story. Why he felt the need to stage the, or reenact as the case may just as well be construed, picture is unclear. But it does erode credibility. Was his story a cover for the inconsistencies pointed out by the reflections in the picture, or was it just to show what he saw when he walked up to the car? As I pointed out before, if that was a representation of what he saw, then his initial reaction to brush it off seems more doubtful. But neither confirm that it was a hoax, as claimed.

With Jussie Smollett, you have his two accomplices confirming it was a hoax, and is considered a true smoking gun. Had they never flipped we would have had no confirmation, only suspicions.

Here we have evidence that strongly points to a hoax, but we lack any confirmation. What we perceive to be smoking guns, may not be what they appear to be. Again, because we have no confirmation that proves he actually concocted and carried out an act with the intention to deceive. So no, it is not a smoking gun, but it does give rise to the possibility of a hoax. So far all we have are strong suspicions, only. No smoking guns.