He was trying to deny something that was written in the Law of War manual and there have been several instances since then.

I have a completely different view. Let me fix this for you: "He was trying to deny or object to my interpretations of what is written in the Law of War manual."

I made no attempt to deny what is written in the Law of War Manual. What I challenged was YOUR interpretation of what it means.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between your own interpretations and the words themselves.

Please make an effort to distinguish between objective facts on one hand and your own theories and interpretations on the other. Between what is written as opposed to what you think what is written means.

Your theories re: the L.O.W. manual are interpretations. They are what you think it means. What you think it means is not necessarily what it means. Unless you are infallible. And neither of us is infallible.

"They were intentionally covered ....to make them appear to be gone."

This is not a fact. This is your theory.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong? Or is that simply impossible?

"we know they were there ... however there was an attempted effort by the Trump team to make the stars appear to be gone and it wasn't by accident, it had meaning"

This is your theory. It's not a fact. A theory can be right or it can be wrong. It can also be partly right and partly wrong.

Theories require proof. But treating a theory as if it is a fact simply because one is convinced of it, that's not rational or reasonable.

He was trying to deny something that was written in the Law of War manual and there have been several instances since then.

I have a completely different view.

He was trying to deny or object to my interpretation of what is written in the Law of War manual."

I made no attempt to deny what is written in the Law of War Manual. What I challenged was YOUR interpretation of what it means.

Request: Please make an effort to distinguish between objective facts on one hand and your own theories and interpretations on the other. Between what is written as opposed to what you think what is written means.

Your theories re: the LOW manual are interpretations. They are what you think it means. What you think it means is not necessarily what it means. Unless you are infallible. And neither of us is infallible.

"They were intentionally covered ....to make them appear to be gone."

This is not a fact. This is your theory, your conclusion.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong? Or is that simply impossible?

"we know they were there ... however there was an attempted effort by the Trump team to make the stars appear to be gone and it wasn't by accident, it had meaning"

This is your theory. It's not a fact. A theory can be right or it can be wrong. It can also be partly right and partly wrong.

Theories require proof. But treating a theory as if it is a fact simply because one is convinced of it, that's not rational or reasonable.

He was trying to deny something that was written in the Law of War manual and there have been several instances since then.

I have a completely different view.

"He was trying to deny or object to my interpretation of what is written in the Law of War manual."

I made no attempt to deny what is written in the Law of War Manual. What I challenged was YOUR interpretation of what it means.

Please make an effort to distinguish between objective facts and your own theories and interpretations, such as what is written as opposed to what you think what is written means.

If you don't, all you are going to hear when someone raises an objection to your theories is: This person is denying facts.

Example: "It wasn't a lighting issue; they were intentionally covered with a blue veil or darkened to make them appear to be gone."

"They were intentionally covered ....to make them appear to be gone." This is not a fact. This is your theory, your conclusion.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong? Or is that simply impossible? Asking for a friend.

"we know they were there ... however there was an attempted effort by the Trump team to make the stars appear to be gone and it wasn't by accident, it had meaning"

This is your theory. It's not a fact. A theory might be right or it might be wrong. Theories require proof. But if you treat a theory as if it is a fact, simply because you are convinced of it, AND you fail to recognize that it's YOUR conclusion and interpretation, that is not rational.