How blatant does it have to be? Well first of all, it has to actually be before it can be blatant.
Let's read the entire thing a few times and maybe your comprehension will finally kick in.
For the record, here is post 59 on the "If you think Dak is terrible chime in thread"
https://cowboyszone.com/threads/if-you-think-dak-is-terrible-chime-in.409782/page-3#post-8301634
As is *CLEAR* from reading the entire post, the only part that even remotely resembles the argument that was presented is this line (also bolded above so you can find it):
Does this (or any of the post) verify these claims by kskboys?
and
Clearly not.
So, he made a claim, and then was asked to support the claim. He whined about it initially. Said he had seen it with his eyes. Finally, he gave in and posted this gem:
Post 59 in mentioned thread is quoted above. Now let's look at kskboys relevant portion:
Now compare that to the part of the statement (or the entire thing if you wish) that I bolded before. Does kskboys distortion of the statement accurately represent what was said? No, it most certainly does not. He made a claim (very similar to ones that you made). He found a comment that does not support his claim, changed it so that it would support his claim, and now you and he are trying to dig deeper. That's lying in my book. I don't play stupid political games and say someone "misspoke" when they undeniably lied.
Barnyard scene? What the hell are you babbling about now?
Get out of here with that remedial nonsense and stop living in your fantasy world.
If you disagree, then please kindly point out which part of that post actually says that Dak ****CANNOT***** make that play or one similar.
If you cannot do that, then the call still stands, for you or anyone else, to please provide evidence of even a single person saying Dak couldn't make a throw like that.
kskboys says he saw it, but then the evidence he provided doesn't support that, so maybe his eyes are tricking him. Actual verifiable data would be nice.