It wasn't a forum thread. it was a live chat on youtube that has been unlisted. I've already posted the screenshot from my computer on this thread at the time I had posted it. https://i.postimg.cc/nhL7PPzx/timestampproof.jpg I posted the question at 11:43 (17 minutes before midnight) before the actual stream video started and took the screenshot at 11:44, one minute after. The stream started at 11:55pm, thus the chat will not go back far enough to see the comment even if I was to post the link.
Ok but you posting digital material that you are ALSO THE SOURCE OF is not "evidence".
Real evidence must be independently verified.
u/EchoLight has seen the unedited version of the screencap and can verify that I posted the question. I can also ask a mod to step in and see the unedited evidence and verify if you really, really somehow suspect that I'm lying to you that I asked a question on a YT live chat.
But not the actual youtube chat.
We would need access to the original youtube chat in order to verify anything. Otherwise it's just a picture on the internet.
I have already proven to the best of my ability that I took this step beyond doxxing myself. Asking more than that is frankly unreasonable standards and I'm never going to convince you if you are an immovable skeptic regardless of how much evidence I could show you.
Ok let's get something straight - you have offered ZERO in the way of credible evidence. Literally nothing.
Evidence consists of proof that can be independently verified. Nothing here fits that. You don't have the source of your question. You have posted this way after the fact and have pointed out that it is not possible to scrutinize the source material because it is gone.
Your evidence gets a 0/10 on the compelling meter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making a judgement on the truth of your claim. Could be true, could be bogus. I'm just pointing out there is zero possibility for any 3rd party to determine the truth or accuracy because the evidence required does not exist.
You have offered nothing but low res images with redacted names. Don't kid yourself, if you offer nothing, expect it to result in nothing.
This isn't a case of me having too high a standard, this is a case of you having no understanding of what a standard of evidence is. I will be clear - It is not digital images that you are the only source of.
I’ve already stated before I didn’t request a proof for the sake of the forum, I did it for my own sake and investigation. I’m sorry I didn’t think to livestream myself doing it for your sake several days down the line - and even then you could claim it was fake.
The obvious problem here is if your proof were true you wouldn't need more proof.
Which makes you story even less compelling.
I’ve already said that you could always just go to the next livestream and ask for your own proof. It’s not rocket science.
But I don't care about the proof. I'm just pointing out that your story isn't compelling and making you aware of what people normally consider evidence.
Unless there’s anything else, kindly get off my case and move on already.
Ok but you posting digital material that you are ALSO THE SOURCE OF is not "evidence".
Real evidence must be independently verified.
But not the actual youtube chat.
We would need access to the original youtube chat in order to verify anything. Otherwise it's just a picture on the internet.
Ok let's get something straight - you have offered ZERO in the way of credible evidence. Literally nothing.
Evidence consists of proof that can be independently verified. Nothing here fits that. You don't have the source of your question. You have posted this way after the fact and have pointed out that it is not possible to scrutinize the source material because it is gone.
Your evidence gets a 0/10 on the compelling meter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making a judgement on the truth of your claim. Could be true, could be bogus. I'm just pointing out there is zero possibility for any 3rd party to determine the truth or accuracy because the evidence required does not exist.
You have offered nothing but low res images with redacted names. Don't kid yourself, if you offer nothing, expect it to result in nothing.
This isn't a case of me having too high a standard, this is a case of you having no understanding of what a standard of evidence is. I will be clear - It is not digital images that you are the only source of.
The obvious problem here is if your proof were true you wouldn't need more proof.
Which makes you story even less compelling.
But I don't care about the proof. I'm just pointing out that your story isn't compelling and making you aware of what people normally consider evidence.
You're the one that keeps coming back lol
Nobody is forcing you to respond.