My claim is as it has always been. If we accept that the misquotes exist it does not follow that they were caused by hallucinations? To tell that we would still need additional evidence. The logical thing to ask would be; Has it been shown or admitted that the quotes were hallucinations?
You've deeply misunderstood their argument in some way I can't quite figure out.
It's simple. We know the quotes are fake, but we don't know for sure if they're hallucinations. The blog post does not resolve this uncertainty.
And yes other answers are reasonably plausible.
You said in another comment that they're "retreating" and "refusing to read" and... no. Your insults are not justified at all.
There is no goalpost moving here.
I read the article.
My claim is as it has always been. If we accept that the misquotes exist it does not follow that they were caused by hallucinations? To tell that we would still need additional evidence. The logical thing to ask would be; Has it been shown or admitted that the quotes were hallucinations?