"This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure."
The first cause is a claim to fact - and it appears undebatably true. The dude bathed it in Kurt's Spray, not water, according to the original source. Nobody seems able to deny this or offer any refutation, though one would like to.
The second clause is an opinion - the 'doubtless' denoting that it can not be proven but the poster has no doubt what will happen. Debatable, but it's a claim to future probability of what will happen with the card, "making predictions". A prediction is also a future speculation, not oft a claim to the past.
There's nothing to play logic with here. The assumption is that "the dude" = Kurt and the resulting false claim that "Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card", which does not seem to appear in the actual statement.
|