# Did Diesel Make It Up? — Check the Record

> This page exists to turn accusations about Diesel the Magus or eFireTemple into specific, auditable claims.

## The rule

Do not ask readers to trust Diesel. Ask them to identify exactly what they think is false.

For any accusation, check:

1. **What exact proposition is disputed?** Use a claim ID where possible.
2. **What primary text or historical source is being cited?**
3. **Is the wording a source fact, a scholarly dating judgment, a dossier inference, or a final dossier verdict?**
4. **What translation or lexical choice is being used?**
5. **Where was the claim stress-tested?**
6. **Was it later corrected, narrowed, or superseded?**
7. **What evidence would reverse the current conclusion?**

## Fast accusation checks

### “Diesel invented the Daniel date.”
The dossier's c. 165 BCE final-vision dating is not presented as Diesel's private invention. The separate dossier inference is that the pseudepigraphic predictive pose constitutes intentional deceptive authentication.

### “Diesel just found random Persian parallels.”
The project built chronology locks, transmission controls, sealed profile tests, rival-candidate tournaments, evidence-dependency audits, hostile falsification, and external scoring precisely to move beyond resemblance hunting.

### “Diesel hid evidence for Yahweh.”
The archive contains an explicit strongest pre-Johannine YHWH reconstruction and before/after/cumulative YHWH tests; the rival was strengthened before the final comparison.

### “Diesel never corrects anything.”
The preserved editions, changelogs, corrections, strict-layer controls, and superseded claims are part of the public archive. See `../corrections.md`.

## Audit links

- [Current verdict](../current-verdict.md)
- [Claim ledger](../claims.md)
- [Corrections](../corrections.md)
- [Challenge and audit](challenge-and-audit.md)
- [Full site archive](../)

## Bottom line

A critic does not have to accept the dossier's verdict. But the proper dispute is over a named claim, its evidence, and its reasoning—not an unsupported accusation that the archive was fabricated or that the project never tested contrary evidence.