You know - as an outside observer - who is admittedly an expert in none of this material, I have to say that David makes the more convincing argument. While I have not seen the hard evidence that David claims to have, I trust him that if asked to, he would gladly produce it. further his argument is based on sound reasoning and is completely self consistent. In other words, it is completely verifiable as being genuine or not genuine in content and claim. (I use the term genuine to indicate that I think David honestly believes what he is saying and that the data he has is consistent with his conclusions - that's something different than being right, although there is generally a very high correlation!) James' argument on the other hand, hinges on a statement of, "C'mon . . this can't be true!" and that's pretty much it.

I certainly don't have the data or expertise to tell who is correct, but I can tell which argument is more sound. In this case, it is clearly that of Mr. Spragg.