Creative Speculation

If you're just going to repeat yourself, then I can play that game, too:

"You still don't have any legal definition of the term "hard evidence" and you still haven't provided any "logical reasoning" for why everyone is compelled to accept your opinion of what is and what isn't."

> Your failure to understand simple logic does not make it wrong.

And again, what makes your "simple logic" wrong is (A) your primary premise -- that Tomb is required to accept your opinion about what is and isn't "hard evidence" -- is simple arrogance, and (B) your conclusions -- that the video must be fake or the translation inaccurate -- do not necessarily follow from the premises, even if they were true, which is a sure sign that your inference is invalid. I don't know anyone whose logic is 100% infallible, but why do you keep talking about logic when you clearly don't even understand the fundamental principles?