In your post 37 you made the following statements:
"...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."
"...there is no previous information to that effect..."
"...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."
In my post 40 I wrote: "So, can you prove your statements:" followed by the list of your statements recorded directly above this paragraph. I was not asking about the "epileptic" or the "wife" parts. I was asking about your statements.
You responded with your post 41 which I found accurate enough, but evasive because it did not respond to what I was asking about in my post 40.