If someone wants to hold onto the principle that "anything's possible," no matter how fatuous or improbable, then yes, but in the nitty gritty of history the objections I laid out are pretty unanswerable. The situation with Troy is not analogous.
Again, total mischaracterization.
I was refuting the idea that lack of continuity, or lack of direct physical corroboration, are themselves necessary and sufficient grounds to reject historical narrative: but that failure to reject a narrative outright need not imply blind acceptance -- there is such a thing as "wait and see." And Troy is a case where lack of direct physical evidence, coupled with 'unreliable' features in a narrative, would have led to the rejection of the story. Hence it remains a counterexample to the principle in general.
Cheers!