t there are weaknesses in the "official" version is hardly surprising. Not only are such gaps and confusions commonplace in historical record (which in any case is hostage to interpretation) but they add to the credibility of it. It's a balance of probabilities and reality is a confusion not a series of complex conspiracies. Didn't Mark Twain say" if you've read two witness statements about a train crash you start to worry about history!"
The calumny that Stratfordians peddle a mythology to maintain some sort of cash cow could be equally levelled at some of the so-called alternative conspiracy theorists. It doesn't advance the argument much and merely provides annoyingly infantile grist in ill-mannered conduct. If the question is to be Will or not to be Will the debate would benefit from acceptance that both circumstances have yet to ravel up the sleeve of uncertainties conclusively or accept that there will always be the unexplained. Exposing these for what they are and seeking discussion as to all possible influences while accepting that there always will be untidy patches that probably will defy resolution is a consummation to be desired rather than engaging in slanging matches. It does the general cause harm I believe.