:PV, I haven't read JAH's book yet but I have read Peter Hancock's book and I don't remember anywhere in that book where he claims to "prove" anything.  In fact, where he is uncertain, he clearly says so and is never dogmatic. 

 :Deb, if you run across anything in Hancock's book that contradicts that, please let me know, because when it comes to history, no author can be certain of anything. I finished reading Hancock's book a couple of months ago and I don't remember Hancock being sure or dogmatic about anything.  I would be surprised if Hancock does that.   

 :PV, what I think you're missing is that Hancock (and probaly JAH) is merely offering what he thinks MAY have happened and he offers evidence (not "proof") to back up his reconstruction, so I'm still not sure why you're so angry.  I have no problem with people being passionate, but Deb is right regarding your tone.