Everything MIGHT be wrong -- but I thought that's how science was supposed to work? Evidence collection -- formulation of working hypothesis -- testing of hypothesis -- modification/falsification of hypothesis -- search for truth! Karl Popper and all that. I think on balance I'd prefer to run with the working hypothesis that has some evidence attached to it, rather than one that doesn't.

Just trying to follow Popper's advice here, and indulge in a spot of falsification of a working hypothesis that was put forward by HHT on the basis of nothing much but speculation, and then accepted by far too many people for reasons that are rather fascinating in themselves.

As you say, this is all to do with PEOPLE, and tells us more about psychology than about science.....