Obviously there is an alternative here: try to present the thing as a theory which may have merit (speculation but speculation to be inspected, taken seriously, and subject to scrutiny) and let everyone continue to hone in on evidence for or against, using incentives, facts that "connect" which might inform such incentives, etc., narrowing down the list of probable explanations and generating new ones. Each explanation has to be internally consistent to hold up, as well as to be able to be, in principle, confirmed or falsified by some DIRECT empirical facts.

It's called falsification, nostr:nprofile1qqsy6sd8e0ym0algfpx32jv64y2pcule5wwrwewvt4trr7s705mr8nqqsj590 , this is how you actually determine empirical facts which are highly dependent on contingencies, with a reasonable degree of confidence. Karl Popper might be a good read for you, he spawned this modern version of the scientific method. It is inferior to the Austrian method for economics, but it is great for determining historical facts and physical laws and whatnot.

There is nothing wrong with calling your theory mere speculation. It would actually allow us to take you more seriously.