It says enough when all you have is ad hominem and no logical arguments.
here is a logical argument: who took the picture that is accepted as the "hashrate" for this device?
Josh did, nobody's trying to hide or deny that.
should a BFL employee taking the pic be considered valid evidence of a hashrate?
I don't see why not. I mean, as far as hashrate is concerned I could have just as easily taken a picture of my own screen.
since we are ignoring the title of this bet, we must throw out the shipping. so we know the device sits in BFL's offices and Josh Zerlan took the picture. LukeJr is claiming to be the owner of this device.
So now let's look at the only part of the statement in question:
For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met:
• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
-- A BFL employee took a picture of it operating
-- a "credible photo" cannot be taken by a BFL employee. It is against all common sense.
-- LukeJr can be considered a BFL Employee. He is doing work for them in exchange for compensation.