

Fallacy of Negative Proof – how can you prove they did
not see what they claim?
Pick out a couple eyewitnesses of the dozens and trash them
Pick out a few quotes by an eyewitness and contradict
only those statements
Later critical interviewers assume that previous ones were poor
Throw eyewitness testimony out like the garbage
Rebuttal or even plausible options to critical analysis
are not usually mentioned
Only the
negative critique survives unless fair and balanced
Which is easier, to be critical of someone or to conduct
real archaeological research
and build up a position?