Show in the articles where there was time for them to conspire between the time they saw "something" and the time they reported it to the teachers. You never showed that.
Ah, another lie. That was explained fully in
this post, i.e. "My position is, and has been all along, that the time YOU (and other gullible folks) say was used in seeing the UFO/ talking to the alien was ACTUALLY used in making up the story".
Plus I also pointed out that the "report to the teachers" has not been shown to be anything other than "We saw a UFO!".
Indeed, you deny they saw anything, and conspired in the meantime based in no evidence whatsoever.
And another. See above quote from me, i.e. I consider it
far more likely than your explanation.
You yourself claimed they consulted with each before they reported it to the teachers. You claim they did this in playground, based on no evidence whatsoever.
Also wrong. As shown by the previous quote. I claim that they had time to do so. This has not been refuted.
You never showed where they conspired after the event occurred. You only claim they conspired instead of seeing something based on no evidence whatsoever.
I didn't use the word "conspire", but one of YOUR posts states that they "consulted" with each other after the initial report.
You never did show evidence of them consulting before they ran to the school. Why is that irrelevant seeing your whole claim relies on this?
Given that, again, I never made the claim that they consulted each other at that time (something I have pointed out as an error/ lie on your part more than once).
This is where you became absurdly duplicitous, claiming not to have said that consulting went on while claiming there was a chance for it. Something you never established.
I actually DID establish that they had time. What I didn't claim however was they actually did so. But it is definite possibility. Something you refuse to acknowledge.
You claimed there was a chance for consultation, which is claiming there was consultation.
So if I claim that I have a
chance of winning the lottery you see that as claim that I actually did so? Please learn how to think.
Wrong. That is a perfect representation of what you were claiming up to that point.
And another lie. I didn't claim that consultation (prior to the initial report) took place.
Then you decide to tell me no event happened at all and that's when they were consulting. Another complete fabrication by you.
Followed by another lie: I didn't say that "no event took place" nor that "that's when they were consulting". As previously explained (see first 2 replies in this post).
Wrong. Between them seeing the beings and running screaming to tell the teachers there was little intervening time. This is based in sheer reaction speed. So it WAS immediate.
This is an assumption on your part - and, as previously noted, the "running and screaming" is ALSO in doubt. It can't have been "immediate" since they took time to find out there were no teachers available and then sought out the other person. We have no indicator whatsoever or the interval of time between the (claimed) sighting and the first report to an adult.
Telling a falsehood IS a lie based on number 4 of the dictionary definition provided. No misrepresentation whatsoever,
Given that you mischaracterised what I wrote then "misrepresentation" is the perfect word for what you did.
In this regard - what constitutes a lie - I note that you still haven't answered the question asked earlier: Please tell me how YOU account for the FACT that two different teachers gave two different versions of events, and the related comment:
"Because it's a well-known fact that if someone says something that disagrees with another person's view of events one of them must be lying. 
I mean, being mistaken, misremembering, that sort of thing couldn't EVER happen. Could it?"
Deliberate falsehood HAS to be the only explanation".
An accusation that someone has/ may have given an incorrect statement is not an automatic accusation of lying.
