This doesn't even make sense, sorry:

"The poster Roller Poodle has brought up a confusing argument. In one posting he says he doesn't believe the Winners are Winnes, but then subsequently he says that they may be so because the author of the "Study" gives the conclusion that they are not. "

I have consistently stated that I do not believe either theory (the "Winnes" theory for want of a better phrase, or "the Winners are from PA" theory) to be conclusively proven.

That is pretty much the opposite of "they may be so because..." or "because the author of the "Study" gives the conclusions that they are not."

If I don't believe it's been proven...that's a pretty flat, inclusive statement. It is also unambiguous.

I have never said anything like the second half of the above quoted sentence/your claim of what I said. I'm not even sure what could've given that impression. So, please, don't put words in my keyboard...thanks.