Not at all, and that would be a fine example of the sort of observation Brillyant could hypothetically make that would justify the actual claim. There are dozens of other similar examples, any or all of which might or might not be the actual observations Brillyant actually made.

What I asked, that started all of this, was for a summary of Brillyant's actual reasons for making the claim.

What I've ended up in instead is an extended conversation about what sorts of observations might in theory justify a claim like that.

Which, while not irrelevant, isn't really an answer to my question, or if it is I'm just not understanding it. Which continues to lead me to think that I'm simply being unclear, or perhaps confused. It's probably best for me to tap out here. Thanks for your patience.