You accept the validity of arguments based on who the speaker is, I accept them based on the documentation. You can say he is bitter or a nutcase, it does not

You accept the validity of arguments based on who the speaker is, I accept them based on the documentation. You can say he is bitter or a nutcase, it does not make it so. About the video, so far you are only able to say that laowhy86 is a youtuber, and therefore he wrong. So far I've said that the documents linked in the video description corroborates the theory, making this theory credible. How long will you continue to shoot the messengers instead of listening to what is said? Apart saying gratuitously that youtubers cannot possibily be right, you have not addressed the content of the video. I guess when you can't criticize the content, criticize the form, it is easier. I will stop now, because I believe you are not writing in good faith. If a youtuber's documented demonstration does not deserve anyone's consideration by nature, because he is necessarily wrong, then certainly by your logic, as stranger writing on hacker news, you don't either deserve anyone's consideration, and you are wrong too.