Except this theory collapses on one key issue. The Church was the SOLE CUSTODIAN of all Scripture and writings of the early Church fathers for FIFTEEN CENTURIES. If they had engaged in this conspiracy, they would simply have destroyed all of the evidence.
NONE of the original Protestant Reformers questioned the FACT that Peter was the first Pope or that he was in Rome, this Simon Magus theory is a VERY RECENT invention by anti-Catholics. Here are two of Luther's "95 Theses" which clearly indicate that he never questioned the fact that Peter was the first pope (obviously, Luther did question papal authority):
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12:28.
While it is clear that both of these statements question mock the papacy, they also AFFIRM THE FACT that Peter was the first pope.
YOU think it collapses. I think it collapses. But UC and Diego (and others to be announced later?) don't think so.
It's one thing to be as all-seeingly wise as I indisputably am, it's another to close the sale with somebody not blessed with my innate superiority (and modesty).
It's so very dicey. From MY POV it looks like Diego and UC are claming to know not only that there was a second shooter in the Book Depository or on the grassy knoll, but also the identity of that shooter. Consequently, my antennae are up and I am VERY alert to (or TRY to be alert to), as I said, a string of probabilities being presented as a producing a certainty, or what looks like a misquote or a tendentious editing of sources. That's about what persuades ME. So our friends are not closing the sale, not even close.
After all, if A is 90% probable and B is 90% probable, the probability of both of them being true is less, namely 81%. Give us 6 things which are 90% probable and we drop below 50% in a hurry.
But unless they are pranksters -- and what a boring prank it would be -- they think this stuff so plausible as to justify entertaining the notion that our Church would be wily enough to disguise the truth so well that a lot of very smart and pious people are deceived, but klutzy enough to leave evidence of their lies all over the place.
At least that's how I see it. I don't DO history much. It all looks like a Rorschach test to me most of the time or like people looking down a well and seeing the reflection of their own face.
But I'll listen, for a while anyway.