You prove the books are fake and you have an audience. Right now, the books are witness testimony. But we both know you can never prove the books are fake, so your only argument is denial of the testimony. In your case, evidently, you think that NOT reading the books equates to knowing what happened. That's a laugh. Do you think the fake news only applies to the news? It also applies to the claim of fake news. You're not immune.
You think reading a book equates to knowing what happened? Do you think fake news only applies to the news?
u/#correct
You prove the books are fake and you have an audience. Right now, the books are witness testimony. But we both know you can never prove the books are fake, so your only argument is denial of the testimony. In your case, evidently, you think that NOT reading the books equates to knowing what happened. That's a laugh. Do you think the fake news only applies to the news? It also applies to the claim of fake news. You're not immune.