Whataboutery? My points are all taken from the official files; in particular from the witness's statements. They were posted in answer to various claims made by you and they show that your claims weren't facts, they were opinions.
Whataboutery would be if I fell for your distraction and gave you my opinion on what is evidence of abduction. Why should I do that when it's obvious none of it would be relevant? What is relevant that no-one can prove an abduction occured; including you imo.
Whataboutery - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
Yet more deflection and changing the topic of argument, all in order to avoid answering questions you know would show your arguments to be flawed.
What "claims" did I present as "facts"? All I did was raise a few examples of where sceptics have often claimed members of the Tapas 7 were lying in order to protect/enforce the McCanns story. I raised them as examples of why sceptics often believe there was collusion among the group to create a false story. Something you didn't like me suggesting when I mentioned the word conspiracy. How does any of what you said in response detract from my point in that regard?
For the sake of moving forward, I then retracted the suggestion of any conspiracy (that you took such issue with), in order that you could go back to answering the original questions I asked. You still refuse to answer them, and the reasons for that are abundantly obvious IMO.
