Yes I "realise" that. You sound dumb for saying that. I wasn't contradicting that story. I was referring to the primary assumption that all the DNA was vaporised where it might have been sourced.
Tried your links, second didn't work. No information on vaporised DNA which you later imply is the "official story".
Your 'equation' is just the title of the post.
How is it an assumption? Because you're assuming that all the DNA was vaporised or that it was gathered where it would have/could have been vaporised. You don't have the slightest clue how they discovered that evidence yet.
Yes of course the FBI is stonewalling an investigation into Hunter/Joe. That's a highly politically charged situation involving the losing Presidential candidate and his son. And allegations from people overseas and involving financial fraud. The two cases are silly to compare, but as usual the FBI looks inept in both and/or focused in one.
If you say it doesn't matter whether DNA was planted, then you're agreeing with me. I asked why we needed a conspiracy to explain this and you've just given me the answer. We don't.
Yes I "realise" that. You sound dumb for saying that. I wasn't contradicting that story. I was referring to the primary assumption that all the DNA was vaporised where it might have been sourced.
Tried your links, second didn't work. No information on vaporised DNA which you later imply is the "official story".
Your 'equation' is just the title of the post.
How is it an assumption? Because you're assuming that all the DNA was vaporised or that it was gathered where it would have/could have been vaporised. You don't have the slightest clue how they discovered that evidence yet.
Yes of course the FBI is stonewalling an investigation into Hunter/Joe. That's a highly politically charged situation involving the losing Presidential candidate and his son. And allegations from people overseas and involving financial fraud. The two cases are silly to compare, but as usual the FBI looks inept in both and/or focused in one.
If you say it doesn't matter whether DNA was planted, then you're agreeing with me. I asked why we needed a conspiracy to explain this and you've just given me the answer. We don't.
It's not a conspiracy. That's the point.
DNA was recovered from the site of the explosion. That's all that first part about vaporization means. You're reading way too much into things.
If the DNA was vaporised that implies it wasn't "found" at all.
Did look at the link from O.P?
"Lie" "Yeah right now did they find DNA in a burning van" "Muh 24 hours!"
Sounds like a conspiracy being implied to me. Perhaps there is one too..but I don't think this is the strongest evidence.