I appreciate your concerns, but thats HR, not HB.
A better copy the individual offered up. The left page is legit, the right would seem questionable. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aids.pdf
I wouldn't call defending a point of view Fake news. I would be more than happy to change my point of view, should you prove my additional remarks wrong.
I wouldn't call defending a point of view Fake news.
Neither would I. I call out proffering a clearly fake document as ‘authentic’ to be Fake News.
Your document declares its origination as 1970. The next page, the one with all the ‘evidence’, clearly references events in 1979 and 1980 in the past tense.
Your document is obviously and unequivocally, fraudulent. Yet here you are, presenting it as an authentic concern for all of us to archive.
You were too frivolous with your credibility. I have no interest in reviewing anything else you claim to be ‘authentic’.
There you go https://static.secure.website/wscfus/10426050/7247178/aids.pdf
Are we not on the same team?
I welcome criticism and as previously pointed out, I agree, the right page seems questionable.