You're the one who claimed it was all based upon assumptions. I assumed you had some idea of what those assumptions might have been. My bad. You were simply bloviating.
Nope, that's not accurate. What I wrote was:
"The timeline summarized in the article seems to be based on assumptions, which are based on interpretation of evidence that isn't presented in the article."
I'll type slowly so you can follow. I wrote that it SEEMS that the ARTICLE is based on assumptions, and that whatever EVIDENCE there might be that those seeming assumptions are based on isn't present in the ARTICLE. Then I asked for a link for further information on whatever research the article was referring to.
Do try to keep up, old boy.