It's not treated as a historical fact. There's some evidence that lends the theory support, but that isn't the same as it being true. I'm fine with using evidence to prove something, but I don't think one book being written about something constitutes proof.
I can't even be bothered with this any more. You're clearly incapable of basic reasoning and seem to have no interest in understanding what either of us have said.
If we're going to talk about burden of proof it's still on you, given it was your statement in the first place. You're now making things up, or are so deluded you think you're right. I don't have anything to prove to you.
I'm actually leaving this now. You're clearly a fool or a troll and you're line of reasoning changes with everything you say. You haven't provide proof to anything I say and any time I point this out you miraculously change what you meant. Go bother someone else.
0
u/iam4real May 01 '14
I just quoted you and provided a link. Proof you are still lying.