The theory is valid on the basis that no objective evidence contradicts it, and all of the interpretations stand up to logical scrutiny, regardless of whether or not you personally believe a single one of them is a stretch. A theory needs nothing more than that.
Why don't you list your "proof" for us, right here and now? Even if you have before. That way, I can't possibly have anything more to say about it, right? Give us a recap. Explain each piece and how it serves as a factual contradiction. Leave nothing to my imagination. You could end this argument right now, if you actually had any. Go point by point, and I will address each one. Then, we can debate the actual topic, instead of whatever it is you're doing here--trying to show me up? I don't even get that.
But, remember: it has to be objective. Otherwise, you're speculating as much as I am.
Now, I've asked you this a half-dozen times at least, and why you insist on arguing semantics instead of just giving me what I want. It's not like you're tired of the argument, as you are clearly ready to sit there and repeat yourself ad nauseum, so what explanation is there for your inability to produce the smoking gun you insist you have?
Do everybody else in this thread a favor and don't bother responding to this post unless you can address this. I don't give a rat's ass about whatever objections you have to the theory, or to me. I just want to see you finally present your case, assuming one exists to present.