Literally no. That is what your argument did and still does stand on. Plausibility, not fact. You’ve proven a remote existed.

Okay - so we know there's a remote. We also know he was reasonably angry at the dog, and we know he reached towards something, then the dog yelped. And you don't think that's enough "coincidences" to no longer be a coincidence? Are you just willfully ignorant at this point? Because if that's the case, any further discussion is indeed futile.

So you admit that I’m correct.

No, I don't, that's something you just pulled out of your ass.

You claim things as fact with no evidence

With no direct evidence - yes. There's a difference between "no direct evidence" and "no evidence at all". But guess what - if enough coincidences come together, they form evidence. In most murder cases, you never know if the TRULY killed the person, but you have finger prints, you have a lack of an alibi, you have a motive etc. All that comes together as a case. It's not like if nobody sees you literally putting the knife into the chest, you're gonna be free.

There's a lot of things we know happened but aren't sure. Hell, we don't know for sure if the 1985 beirut bombing was truly a CIA op, as some later investigations considered. There's also no actual evidence of trump ACTUALLY fucking kids on epstein island - but (and that's one of the few things we agree on in this entire discussion) I think that all the coincidences and relations come together and form a pretty conclusive picture.

And I think that in the hassan case, there's just too much "coincidences" to still be considered coincidence.

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?

The dog yelping in a vacuum wouldn't be a problem. Again - it comes together with hassan being angry with his dog AND him reach off screen. That's what forms the evidence.

You’ve already admitted you’re a bad faith actor. You admitted previously that no matter what Hasan says you will discredit it.

I don't think I am. I barely knew about the guy before the dog incident, the only time I heard about it was because LTT was building a PC for him lol. But yes, you're right - I don't believe the word of the guy because of course he would try to defend himself to save his reputation.

You then try to claim “conclusive” evidence

I think, if we look at the entire situation and how it happened - it's fairly conclusive.

Then, something would come out, perhaps that the collar is not a shock collar for example

Okay, but where is that "something". There is no something. He claimed it was a "vibration collar", which has been debunked already because people found the exact brand of the device he was using, and it's a shock collar. And there has been no something since.

And attempting to treat claims as verified fact while these remain inconclusive is bad faith.

No, it's really not. The combination of multiple claims can be evidence, as I've stated multiple times by now.

However, tl;dr: I believe the video and the order of events in the video fit to him using a shock collar, you don't. Any further discussion regarding this topic is just kinda pointless as we're just going in circles. I will refer to the video, you will say: "Well we don't know what he did off camera.". I'm not sure if you are genuinely not sure and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt or you know damn well what he did, but that would make a big supporter of your political agenda look bad.

Whatever you do with this, have a nice rest of the day! :)