It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.

However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.

If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.

It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.

However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.

If it can further be shown that all of history (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.

It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.

However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that box of "all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.

If it can further be shown that all of history (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.

It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.

However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that box of "all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.

If it can further be shown that all of history (the entire box of stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.