I do not know if you are aware of how little sense this comment makes. For example, it is in the very structure of the words "disingenuous" and "consider" that the sentence "X is disingenuous; consider Y" is nonsense for all X and Y; you cannot prove that someone is being insincere by asking them to think about something that they've not thought about before. This is ignoring the bigger issue that people forget things all the time and that it does not usually mark a lie, and that even if someone is lying about some statement somewhere, it doesn't change the basic Bayesian fact that yes, you do need to consider an event in the context of all of the probability-weighted candidate explanations for it, if you want to know whether it's reasonable for a person to conclude it.

I respectfully yield whatever last words are in this exchange to you.