Dave Rishar
Silver Member
Not much, if it all checks out. The problem here is that none of it checks out, so we have to disregard the specifics and go for the "big picture" approach, all the while realizing that any (or all) of the specific bits of evidence are questionable at best. But what does this say about the big picture? If we disregard each individual piece of evidence as being unreliable (as we must) and instead assume that, taken together, the story is sound, we're basing theories on a story that itself is built from garbage. If that story is indeed correct, it's only by coincidence.
As I've pointed out earlier, much of the evidence that the current theories are based on don't actually support the current theories when taken all together, but only when cherry picking. Up until a few decades ago, it was a pirate treasure. Most believe that it's something else now, but all of the early evidence supported a pirate treasure. We can either go back to the pirate treasure theory or else we can accept that that early evidence was incorrect or fake, but we can't have it both ways unless we question all of it. When we question all of it, we find that most (if not all) of it is not really evidence at all. It's almost entirely made up of stories, speculation, bad photographs, and assumptions.
A very interesting comparison and one that I feel is both correct and insightful. Unfortunately, I don't think that this solidifies your case, but rather points out the blurry area between beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on faith. This has become a religion to some, and no matter how much contrary evidence that I turn up, there are people that will still believe in it.
