History is very subjective. Accounts of events are almost always one sided. You should do yourself a favor and question what you are told is a true account of something that occurred unless you are witness to it yourself. When you find yourself with a sufficient amount of overwhelming and corroborating evidence, then, maybe, you can make a logical conclusion.
I have spent a great deal of my life, actually most of it, as amateur Historian and Archaeologist. At one time I wanted to do it professionally, or at least I wanted to be Indiana Jones. I have met very interesting people like Richard Leakey, in 1983 when he was still talking about paleontology, and many other classic figures in the field.
I have participated in real, live, Archaeological digs run by universities, and helped rebuild Native American Historical Landmarks with my bare hands and some knowledge.
I have read countless classical textbooks, attended many hundreds of seminars, watched thousands of documentaries. Additionally, I have read books and articles written by people with literary excellence like Will Durant , marvelously deep research like Graham Hancock, and several other very well known, both respected and despised voices. Having deeply immersed myself into the information available, I feel that I have left no stone unturned in order to make my own conclusions on history.
Graham is one of those people I really want to meet and have long discussions with. He is one in whom I have the utmost respect as a researcher and certainly don't consider him to be conducting pseudo-archaeology.
Don't forget that Calvert and Schliemann were ridiculed mercilessly for years after suggesting they should follow Homer and Virgil's descriptions to find Troy. Then it was identified in Hissarlik, exactly where Homer described.
Anyone with the passion and diligence to go against the common theories and perform mountains of research to understand a subject should not be simply dismissed because you don't want to agree with them.
When a conclusion is made to support a hypothesis in spite of overwhelming evidence contrary to that hypothesis, one should question whether evidence or pride are driving the hypothesis. Denying new evidence based on the fact you don't like what it means should be a criminal act.