2 ms·
Your argument essentially boils down to "he only called it a hoax once--and c'mon doesn't he really deserve a huge benefit of the doubt as to which part he was
by wycy 6y ago
Your argument essentially boils down to "he only called it a hoax once--and c'mon doesn't he really deserve a huge benefit of the doubt as to which part he was calling a hoax?--and all the other times he downplayed it or called it no big deal he avoided using the word 'hoax'". If, as you contend, he hasn't been pushing that idea all along--in one set of words or another--why does his base believe it's a hoax?
- MockObject 6y agoIf someone is alleged to have claimed that ghosts don't exist, but we see them hanging protective charms over the doors and sprinkling salt on the floor, the objective observer will seriously doubt the allegation.