As an experiment, call up an ancient history department at any good college and ask the director for an opinon on how many disputed theories there are now about ancient history of any kind, and how many conflicting schools of thought. Historical theories are not more settled than archeological theories or geological theories. Basically, you pick the theory that blows your skirt up. I suppose I can go along with that. However, I object to LostTribe repeatedly stating his personal theories as FACT, when they are just theories, and are not widely accepted among most historians, archaeologists or religious scholars.
>I object to LostTribe repeatedly stating his personal theories as FACT
>I do not claim any qualifications.
You have said all we need to know.
Since the law deals with judgement, I figure I can use law terms.I think what he has is a
prima facie case in the category of the mystery of the lost tribes. It's not just a refuting of an existing case because it's founded on information missing from other cases.
A prima facie case has to stand until it's conclusions are successfully challanged by overturning the facts and evidence or the conclusions with new, or other interpretaions of the, facts. What losttribe presents are facts, and he presents his conclusions based on them.
If the facts are right, the conclusions logically have to stand as fact until alternate conclusions that fit the facts come along to say they're not the right conclusions. I can't see any way out of that process and still come to the truth of the matter.
