Non events have no empirical proofs 60Gunner. Now lets say I say that I never carried a 60. You could easily falsify that by looking at my Army records or by asking the guys in my platoon. But that’s because it would be true. There is no way to falsify a statement such as Ted Cruz had an affair if he didn’t. Comprende?
I respectfully reassert my position. One could, for example, assert with 100 percent certainty that there is no evidence for the existence of polka-dot three-horned elephants on roller skates, because there was never any mention of one in any published historical document, pictorial representation, or piece of archaeological evidence to ever exist.
That is my point: that it is possible to prove a complete lack of evidence for something by proving that there is no mention of it an any existing historical media; but it often requires a great deal more intellectual effort to prove something does not exist because you have to pore over every single media during a given time period and not find even a vague allusion to its existence.
It's far easier to prove the existence of something because someone, somewhere, will doubtless have written about it in either a peer-reviewed or generally accepted document.
Therefore, I continue to stand by my challenge to its original recipient: If there is no evidence, prove to us that there is no evidence. Stand by your statement by doing some intellectual work, or step off now before you prove yourself to be an intellectually lazy fool.