The past is irrelevant to your question. Your hypothesis* is NOW, in the present, and you have not suggested any means how your hypothesis could ever be falsified, even in theory. You acknowledged this criticism on multiple occasions before, bit I don’t think you understand it.
- Technically you don’t have a hypothesis, because there no possible falsification, but I understand your meaning - no need to quibble.
If you wish to revise and restart with a new thread, then more power to you. However, I am unlikely to participate, because from my perspective you haven’t really addressed the most serious criticisms at all. Instead I would encourage you to join in some of the other discussions here. Our goal is to establish Common Ground for understanding each other. You express yourself well enough, but I think you could benefit from learning to understand a little better (so could we all).