I explained to you exactly how the impression the video and photos were intended to convey could have been faked. I didn't say it was faked, I said it could have been faked. Because the person provided the name and address of the store I am inclined to believe it was not faked, but even that has a loophole. The 'ignorant clerk' idea was already mentioned, so if someone calls the store and the clerk says they don't know anything about Koma Unwind, there's already an explanation in place. In fact, the person also already suggested that they could "go silent" again, which gives an out for not answering questions about the logistics of the photos and video. Questions like: Why did you think it was important to show driving up to the store, but not to show bringing the product to the counter to be purchased? Nobody doubts that you can drive up to a store...
Proving something is proving something. If there's a way to fake something and achieve the same result, as there is in this case and which I explained, it's not proof. Proving something means showing there's no way it cannot be true. Once again: I did not say the video and pictures are phony. I would not be surprised to discover the product actually for sale in gas station convenience stores in Virginia, supplied by Novelty Express.
You can gripe about how I got the "proof" I asked for and I'm still not happy, but the fact is, it's not proof. A video that stops short of actual purchase + anonymous receipt does not prove Koma Unwind was purchased at that store. Sorry.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
