Holy shit the only thing you're trying to stand on is that you can't know for sure what he did off camera?

Literally no. That is what your argument did and still does stand on. Plausibility, not fact. You've proven a remote existed. Which is consistent with Hasan's testimony I shared (along with the clips you somehow refuse to admit that I referenced which are linked throughout the articles...mmmk).

Now how far fetched is it he used that remote, which in turn causes the dog yelp.

Anybody catch the licensce plate of those goalposts? That's pretty far fetched from there being nothing "inonclusive."

Not a single shred of evidence

The clips. The articles. The testimony. My whole point this entire time is that what you claim as inconclusive is not. You claim it is torture. You have no proof. You claim it was a shock collar. You have no proof. Get it through your skull. You're working backwards from your conclusion, literally saying "well how far-fetched of an idea is it?" That means you have to make a logical leap to get there, literally inconclusive, my god.

Now, one might say I don't have any evidence either, which is certainly true, however, I think that my version of events holds up better if compared to the video.

So you admit that I'm correct. You claim things as fact with no evidence. We got there. That's pretty far from "Hasan is an irrefutable animal abuser." Now it's "well, I think he is, and I have no evidence to back it up, but come on, I believe it so that must mean it makes sense."

You think the dog just yelped for fun at that point in time?

My dog has yelped for seeming no reason before. He's also slipped on a step and yelped before. He's also gotten his nail stuck on his kennel before and yelped. Again. Inconclusive. We cannot know. But I guess you do with no evidence?

testimony

Yeah, one by hassan himself

You've already admitted you're a bad faith actor. You admitted previously that no matter what Hasan says you will discredit it. You then try to claim "conclusive" evidence. Those contradict, for any evidence to be conclusive, you'd have to weigh it against the testimony of the "perpetrator" and it would need to hold up. Not "but c'mon bro, it's not that far fetched." You forfeited being worth taking seriously with that earlier.

other by ethan klein, who's just guessing and I'm not sure how he gets to his conclusion

So guessing is literally buying the collar you and others allege is doing the "torture" and testing it on himself. If you knew how to read, you'd be sure how he got there.

referenced completely irrelevant points on the side like my opinion on bodycams

Sorry, I didn't realize it had to be spelled out explicitly. You see, when a camera films from a single frame of reference, there cam be an interpretation of events, but it is limited by what is in frame of reference and what is not. People have been imprisoned using bodycam footage, claimed to be "all you nees to reference, it's clear as day" only to be exonerated later with further evidence or different angles that tell a completely different story. In this exact case, you would be the police alleging that this man tortued an animal. A remote is there, the dog yelps, it's all connected. Then, something would come out, perhaps that the collar is not a shock collar for example, such as the testimony, which changes the story completely from what you believe and is equally as plausible. That is the definition of being inconclusive as both stories are plausible with all the evidence presented thus far. Does that help? A "but is it that far-fetched" doesn't suddenly make one more conclusive than the other. And attempting to treat claims as verified fact while these remain inconclusive is bad faith.

Roughly 30 minutes I'd say, I'm just checking in every now and then during deadlock queue time.

So 23 minutes to easily educate yourself, or even attempt to refute what I put forth, but you can't be bothered. That tracks. Half that on 2x. Same reasoning is used to "keep x country for x" currently around the world. Hence why we call you out as a rightoid which you've also not refuted.