Ben,
I really am trying to understand, but this makes no sense. By your own admission, your previous work was "85-90% wrong" and you spent 4 years of relentless experimentation only to find your previous thinking was largely wrong. That is what you are saying, isn't it? So basically your earlier critics were mostly right? Back a few years ago you were adamant that everyone was knapping the wrong way and needed to use small antler cylinders as straight punches, but now you are saying that is wrong? I'm not asking in a sarcastic, or snippy way, I honestly don't follow.
Regardless though, if all that happened back then, and by your own admission this is a new idea from less than a year ago, what does one have to do with the other? You seem upset that people ignore the historical evidence, but perhaps that is partly because guys like you come along and misinterpret the historical evidence, lead a bunch of us down the wrong path and then, knowing you were "85-90% wrong", refusing to correct the interpretation. You said in a previous exchange you wanted to make flint knapping "relevant again" but how does one person working in isolation accomplish that? Again, serious questions, not at all meant to be snippy.
Lyman says this is like a chess game. Not so. Chess is played in the open where both the players and spectators can clearly watch every move. This is a poker game where one guy claims to have the winning hand but refuses to put his cards on the table.
I fold.
Keith