Saint Patrick & Names along the Antonine wall

[Nathan Ross]

those who think they know the truth and so distort the story to what they think it should be... those that amend details to make them fit in with what the author thought they ought to be.

Who does this?

it's a 12th century manuscript.

That's pretty significantly 'post Roman'!

Dumbarton is the next place along the Clyde with a possible Roman fort.

What about Bishopton? That's closer. There's no known Roman fort at Dumbarton.

Other authors have said that SUBDOBIADON matches Dunbarton and that MedionNemeton is a match for Nemthur.

Who are these 'other authors'?

It's also speculation that there were no other sources.

That is a real ouroboros of an argument!

We're told he wasn't.

Wasn't what? Born in Roman Britain? We have a medieval commentary on one source that says he was from Dumbarton, and another medieval source, probably based on that one, that says he was from Strathclyde (a place that did not exist during his lifetime). That doesn't seem all that 'historical' to me... But I don't think we can say either way.

Roman coin evidence that proves a community with Roman links right through the time of the Roman empire. The evidence proves a community with Roman links existed.

What evidence is this? All I can see in the paper you quoted are a handful of 4th century coins (all but one or two early 4th century) from the general vicinity. As you know caches of Roman coins have been found in China. This does not demonstrate the existence of a 'community with Roman links'.

And your evidence for this is what? ... CONTRARY to the historical evidence.

I have already given the contemporary literary evidence for the relatively mild persecution in Britain and Gaul under Constantius I.

What 'historical evidence' have I contradicted?

I'm not asking you to jump through any impossible rhetorical hoops here - I'm just suggesting that if you put forward definite theories (and especially if you dismiss all other theories as 'nonsense' - laughable' - 'ridiculous' - 'rubbish' - 'crap' etc, as you have done) then your ideas should meet certain very basic standards of historical scrutiny. The first of which being that you can support your ideas with firm evidence, and also that the sources you are quoting say what you claim they say.