You made an assertion that you could not possibly have known to be true. You assumed it to be true and then insisted that it had to be so because you had said it. I made no claims either way, I just pointed out the alternate possibilities.
You made the common mistake of thinking that your conclusions must be correct and cannot be assailed. You didn’t like it when I pointed out other possibilities. I know Eaton, do you? I also know the environment that he inhabited in 1970. Do you?
I would never presume to know what he knew or didn’t know back then or even subsequent to it. You did and insisted that you were right. I don’t think much of such claims.
No, I did not. Not in any post. I stated an opinion and stated it in terms that unequivocally identified it as an opinion. I'll copy-and-paste them for you.
So he was in a position to be very aware of Kerry’s treason at the time and he’s been silent about it for 44 years.As someone headed for a military career at the height of the Vietnam War it’s not likely he would be ignorant of the anti-war protests and its most famous uniformed protester and treason committed by an officer of the Navy. And he’s had 44 years to hear about it.
There is nothing there claiming an assumption that I was right. It was an opinion clearly stated as an opinion. Of course I thought it was likely (there's that word again) or it wouldn't be my opinion.