I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding how a debate works and that, asking me to research "any" claim you've made in the past is pointless because I never called them into question, (what I did call into question was your credibility as a primary source - as in, you have none) I don't even read 90% of your asinine posts. This is a ridiculous diversion tactic because you are trying to make it about me, when it's all about you and the "first hand experience" you claim to have. Obviously you can't prove it, or you would have already - just to shut me up, instead of demanding that I somehow disprove who you are and who you know; Which, even if I could confirm with some degree of accuracy is not something I am at all interested in doing.

Further, What you are attempting to do is a logical fallacy known as "Argument from ignorance".

here, let me help you:

"In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, [sic] wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."