In what way is your opinion not a theory? Are you claiming that your opinion is that something impossible happened? If not, then you have a “theory” about Parker. That theory is your opinion, so it’s not a “theory” in a scientific sense, it’s in the normal linguistic sense.
I only have an “opposite” opinion in the general sense. There are many things that could be true; truth is not a bi-polar selection. But I certainly have an “opnion” that Parker is actually Parker, that his daughter is Emilie, that Emilie is dead.
But just because I have an opnion, and you have an opinion, does not mean that our opinions are equivalent, or equally valid. They are opinions about truth, and in this case, my opinion corresponds to the facts as they are known, and your opinion is contrary to facts and common sense, and is grounded on a faulty premise about the range of human behavior.
It isn’t that I believe I am right; it is that my opinion is based on an analysis of all the facts that are known, and the research I have performed, and is therefore grounded in reality, while your opinion is based on a feeling you have based on a simplistic understanding of people’s emotional reactions, and contrary to the facts as they are clearly laid out.
Again, you may have an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, but that opinion is not grounded in reality, nor equal to an opinion of the nature of the moon based on the scientific study of the samples returned from the lunar missions.
That is, assuming you don’t believe that was staged.
Yawn...you’re pathetic.