Some good thoughts and worthy ideas raised, though in general they don't really address the red flags I have on the matter (theory).

It should be noted that I myself am not so foolish or nooby to aspire to or even desire "definitive proof". And, if plausible deniability exists, then it means that one can never really be certain anyway.

The options you cite re: a foil for devolution quantify only two aspects that is, if "all things being equal, would you prefer A or would you prefer B?" But to my mind, its NOT the case that all things are being equal. Either A or B both have unique problems and unique advantages and are more than likely subject to unique or differing constraints, liabilities etc. It is all those many different aspects that my own thought processes tell me are what need to be weighed up.

In a game of chess, it is about overall control, and not necessarily absolute control over this or that piece.

Casein point:

Lots of presidents have rebelled against their controllers, leading to extreme happenings of historic importance (assassinations, resignations etc).

Do you think that in the past, there have been game-board situations that are identical or equivalent to the game board today? I do not.

In addition, I should probably add that I view the game board as multidimensional, in this sense.

Heaven (in the sense of Asian Philosophy - 天) exists. God, the higher spiritual realms exist and act out, and interact with those living on the earthly plane. Many on the earthly plane understand a sphere of the action, but not the overall plan and objectives of Heaven.

But in general, the spiritual realm is the realm of cause, and the material realm is the realm of effect. Thus, historical incidents "extreme happenings of historic importance" may appear to have causation in the material realm (plans, intrigues, actors and agendas) but are in fact underlined by causation in the spiritual realms.

Thus, while Heaven is executing its plan and objectives, those on earth may be carrying out certain roles and undertaking certain objectives, but that doesn't mean they are in control of everything. Indeed, if they enjoy control, it is likely because, like avatars and champions designated to fight on behalf of others, they execute control (and have the commensurate responsibility) because it has been granted to them.

By which I mean, there are likely many factors we ourselves are not aware of, as we do NOT have the responsibility to execute those things. We are not meant to know. What we are meant to do is to find out what we need to know in order to execute OUR responsibility.

That constraint should be kept in mind, I believe. When I look at some of the ideas and theories out there, and HOW people pursue them, I will often have misgivings because I don't really see how those ideas, theories and approaches actually HELP those people to grasp and fulfill THEIR own responsibility.

Indeed, a theory or hypothesis can be used as a self-inflicted distraction, or as a convenient excuse to ignore or avoid other things that are required in order to grasp, understand and execute a person's responsibility. Are the ideas, the theories productive? Do they advance the necessity for fulfilling personal responsibility, or collective responsibility?

This is also something I take into consideration, in addition to logicality, reasoning, and material data, etc.

Moving on...

Again, how do you know he did capitulate?

Well, I don't. (I never said I did.) My question was "IF (A)", then what? It's supposition, then looking down the line at what that might imply, and indicate, and play out.

I think its safe to say that NONE of us "KNOW" what the reality of the situation is. But by being circumspect in how we approach things, with enough reflection on our own internal processes to make the actions (approaches) we use bear fruit in terms of self-development, then that's a plus.

There are many things we may never know, but I think in one sense, the real opportunity here is that we are presented with an opportunity to engage with the world (including the information, the narratives, the action) in ways that can enhance and promote our own personal and collective development. If its challenging, that's a good thing. But the objective may not be to 'know' but to uncover how I think, why i think what I think, how I've been programmed, and to what extent I've really understood myself in relation to the world.

Final word: by extensive papers, again, I mean material that I could read, digest and find convincing. It's not about having proof. It's about how I engage with the material, and I have not found material or reasoning that I find convincing. I have found a LOT of material in other areas that I find extremely convincing, and by and large, my own personal experiences play a key part in any confirmation I arrive at.

(E.g the "Q proofs" ala deltas, etc, and drops, were never a big deal for me; I saw many other proofs that were far more convincing or relevant to me that Q is legit.)

That's one of the red flags the "biden is fake" theories have for me. Does it make ANY difference to me, to my support for DJT, for my role and engagement with the Plan, or to any other anons? Ultimately, it feels irrelevant, actually. (meaning whether it is a or whether it is b, the net effects are basically the same). So why is so much energy attached to it? Why do some people fixate on it to the Nth degree, indulging in such an expression of unabashed certainty, when of course they CANNOT actually know?

and so on.

I like the discussion. It is good. There is much food for thought in your ideas and thinking, and when I can engage without all the emotional overtones that the "I am certain, and there can be no doubt crowd" engenders, it's a lot easier to keep an open mind. Or at least, keeping the mind open is a lot more pleasant, when people aren't engaged with a personal and emotional attachment to their own ideas that overpowers open thinking.

More later.