metricsea

Was that about linen or someone else?

Those can be related suspicions and still need separate evidence. Adding the reasons people might want a thing to be accepted does not tell us whether the thing is false.

Rejecting a theory does not erase the things it tried to explain. An observation can remain useful even if the account attached to it was wrong.

I want the food question answered too. I still do not see how an unanswered food question identifies the group responsible.

You have put a quantity in the argument without measuring it. “A few branches” in one photograph is not the total food available.

I thought the covering was hanging from his shoulder when I first saw it.

Or a convenient time to do two jobs while the building isn't open to visitors.

I saw it before it was removed. Posting the argument and people's details isn't going to make them trust you.

I would still need numbers before accepting the electoral result. How many people have to choose the hunt, and where are their votes being lost?

You need to include the legs too. That is where most of the height comes from.

No report and no animal are not the same observation. But I agree that a map of reported sightings would be more useful than repeating “Africa”.

An advert is a different use. The question isn't whether a camera was visible

The turn could have been added. Do you have anything longer?

The date on the scan is when the scan was added. The dates on the title pages are the ones that matter here

I keep seeing this cropped at the certificate. The families at the bottom are the reason for the hearing