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