>>8523842 (pb)
Anon the post you are replying to:
>>8521950 (pb)
seems to be one of the better articulated chunks of reasoning I've seen on the board. NOT like some datefag/clockfag/clownfag posters. Not certain if it checks out but the reasoning is there.
The followup (pt 2) is the more sketchy part. No reasoning provided. Unsupported claims.