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.
What losttribe presents are factsThis is where we disagree. When we speak of ancient history, it is difficult to call ANYTHING anyone says a "fact." It is all theory.
LostTribe's theories are not agreed with by most scholars. The fact that he read some book published in Muskogee, OK that sells for $11.00 does not make him correct and 90% of historians and biblical scholars wrong.