Quote Originally Posted by Mick P View Post
Yes Matts thesis is well written and well presented but it is unwise to say it is conclusive until someone else who disputes the findings submitts a similar submission and that could be a long time away.

My own view is that this topic is too out of date to be sensibly discussed. There will be claim and counter claim on both sides. This is like trying to prove that Richard 111 was responsible for ordering the death of the two Prices in the Tower of London.

Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that there are somethings can will never be truly answered.
The central fact that the whole thing is designed to frame and throw into sharp relief is that, shortly after the event, a representative of Smiths asserted that Smiths were the sole watch on the summit of Everest in 1953 and a representative of Rolex conceded that this was the case. Both representatives had access to all the information they needed to be sure and if their statements are not an example of a historical fact then nothing is.

Sometimes we do have to accept that things can’t be known, but this isn’t one of them.

If you look at Norgay’s wrist and see a gold Datejust then you really should have gone to specsavers. If you see two watches on Hillary’s wrist in the seconds before the final climb, or at any other time, then you’ll need to point it out because in literally hundreds of hours of looking at pictures, including literally every one held at the Royal Geographical Society collection, I’ve never seen it.

All the evidence in the case of Richard III is circumstantial. If we had written reports from, say, John Argentine accusing Richard of the murder and a written confession from Richard conceding he did murder them, all backed by pictures of the preparations and aftermath of the murder then we’d have an equivalent situation.