Such an analysis is beyond me, as it requires an intimate knowledge of another person's experiences, both internal - such as personal attitudes, and/or reactions to memories that are either relatively fixed or changed, perhaps radically, over time - as well as any possible new external experiences that may have occurred after the relevant event or events. There can even be a combination of both.
Such information has never been imparted to me, and there arises the rhetoric question, "why should it?"
Is all that I know is what was said to me, and I can only consider the statement to be true, as I can find no reason to dismiss it as false. This is the extent of what I can say about the matter.
You will see in my previous post that at no point did I dismiss the statement as false. I was trying to pinpoint the time at which Maurice Deebank felt compelled to have the view that he did. Suffice to say itwould make perfect sense if this viewpoint came about after Felt's last concert, but it would not prove to be consistent if the views were commenced before this, based on the fact that my analysis of his relaxed behaviour backstage with the rest of the band arose from the fact that I met and conversed with him at that time.
To be fair though - these appear to be his current views in lieu of what you are imparting here - so how he was in the past doesn't have any real bearing on the present.