What is the truth about entry issues with the Thai DTV visa based on community feedback?

@Christopher **********

Anonymous participant does not like you claim there are no DTV holders denied, he only says he did not see any reports.

I do not claim anything at all, he never says his research is complete, so why should I claim it is incomplete. I nowhere suggest he should probe deeper, I am not really interested at the results, because I am quite sure nobody here has access to all official data.

I have no doubts, the only thing is here that you claim something as if it is a fact, but you cannot proof it, so in your logic you are trolling.

I only ask you if you can proof your claim, how can that be trolling?

If someone asks you to account for your statements, you call that trolling?

The purpose of my post is to ensure that your claim is proven and can therefore be considered reliable, or that it becomes clear that you are just making empty claims and we had better not take it seriously.

Now it is clear the latter is the case, so we better ignore your unfunded claim.

@Luit ****************

You accept the validity of the anonymous participant post in that his collation and compilation of reports results in zero reports of denied entry of DTV holders. What you are claiming is that his stated results are inconclusive because there may be unreported instances of DTV holders being denied entry. Therefore, you are suggesting that anonymous participant needs to probe deeper, make further enquiries and investigations into that possibility. In the absence of verifiable reports of denied entry, the only way as I see it would be to approach Thai Immigration Bureau. You state you 'aren't really interested'. You question that anonymous participant's results may be inconclusive yet you don't want to do anything that might confirm or deny your doubts. Therefore, what is the purpose of your post beyond trolling?

@Christopher **********

Your logic cannot even be called logic.

You jump to the strangest conclusions.

Of course I accept the mentioned post as valid, but it only says he did not find any report of denial. Nothing more nothing less.

The fact that he did not find any does in no way mean there are no denials.

I did not see tigers in Thailand, nor did I get reports from family or friends.

But I am quite sure there are tigers within 100 km from our house.

It is your claim there are no denials of DTV holders, so YOU have to deliver the proof. Why should I tell you how your proof should look. I understand it might be very difficult to proof, but when you don't have the proof you should just not make the statement.

I see no reason why I should ask immigration about this, I am not really interested

@Luit ****************

Again, your bizarre logic. You believe anonymous participant posts might be credible. Therefore, up to you to either accept the post as valid or not. Same applies to the original posts from which the anonymous participant has collated and compiled his 'statistics'. You don't state what proof you require that no DTV holder has ever been denied entry/reentry to Thailand? In the absence of any verifiable reports of anyone being denied entry your question rests there. Otherwise, as you have previously stated you have obtained information relating to DTVs from an Immigration Officer, perhaps you could try asking him?

@Christopher **********

The facebook link you provide does not prove in any way that nobody with DTV has been denied entry, so what should I accept?

I asked you for proof and did not get any proof from you.

Since it is your statement, you have to provide the proof, it is not up to me to proof the contrary, you make a statement.

@Luit ****************

As you haven't responded, I will assume you accept the information collated by anonymous participant as being correct. You asked me for proof that no DTV holder has been denied entry/reentry since July 2024. As you haven't provided any information to the contrary I will also assume you don't know anything.

@Luit ****************

All spadework already done on this for you. Posted by an 'anonymous participant'. You've previously stated you have no problem accepting anonymous posts as being valid; 0/

@Christopher **********

can you proof that?