Nice selective quotation. You've learned well from your models.
Anyway, Christophe Leijnen wrote:
> If H O is proven untrue (significantly) then one can reject
> HO and except H A, and viceversa. One cannot prove H O or H
> A, so neither hypothesis can be rejected. Untill one is
> proven to be true or untrue.
The basic problem with your reasoning is that history, really, cannot "prove" things to be untrue. If no evidence exists, one can always say (as Hancock and you do) that it might yet turn up. There is always possibility.
Using your methods, which are statistical and not historical, anything and everything are possible in history, hence my reductio ad absurdum example. If historical hypotheses have no evidence whatsoever to support them, there is no way to distinguish between the possibilities of Weslh unicorns, alien pyramid builders or lost civilizations. No evidence exists for any, so they are alike untestable.