That is contingent on the veritas of the source of what one has read.
A formal documented paper that has gone through peer review and having outside collaborating evidence carries much more weight than the self published pulp pseudo history with no review proof of accuracy, or alleged journals that were not original, but copies of copies that were disposed after being translated by the finder is a good example of "something in writing doesn't make it fact".
As for "because it has never been read some where that any of that happen" is not proof in any way "it didn't" but in all probability never happened, allowing these purveyors of fringe fabricated history free range in creating their fantasies for profit.
Dang, you went back 6 months to quote a small portion of my post at the time. and I stand by my post. If you were going to do something secretive you would not be letting everyone in on it right. You may or may not have someone making a journal of it all at the time. Maybe years later but you know how info get miss-remembered and all... Yet would be coming from what is thought as now as The Source...( dates of the 1000 ship batter from a few pages back that varied up to 600 years from people who wrote about it )
I keep going back to Sinclairs Diploma that SOMEONE claimed was all knowing, was written by his grandson yet it didn't even know when or how the man died!!! Just saying.... You can't believe everything just because it is written, and just because it is not written about does not mean it didn't happen..