^No, I'm not assuming that. The whole point
is that I refuse to assume anything. I'm assessing probabilities based on the available evidence, like any scientist or scholar would do. I'm not insisting that anything is a "fact" or a certainty, I'm just weighing the relative likelihood of the hypotheses. I'm pointing out that we have no actual proof
one way or the other so nothing should
be assumed -- particularly not a premise that's incredibly unlikely and would require extraordinary circumstances to be true. Why is that so hard to understand?
I'm not saying it can't possibly have been Jonathan Archer -- sure, extraordinary and ridiculous circumstances can and do happen in Trek. I'm just puzzled that everyone seems to assume
it was him, when there's another possible interpretation that's a lot simpler and more believable. I'm puzzled that it never even seems to occur to anyone that he could have had descendants, or that someone who's been president would not be called "Admiral."