Originally Posted by ThePhantasm
I proved it over and over. Your requirements for what constitutes proofs are strange and overboard except for when it suits your interpretation.
Thanks for the complement about my comeback... I thought it was funny as well!
You actually didn't prove anything. My requirements for proof is that it be solidly substantiated by the movie, not that it be inferred by you or any other posters on here. I don't offer my interpretation because I realize it is not suitable for evidence, all my arguments are based on what is explicitly told to us by the movie. Perhaps our definitions of proof are incongruent