For those who want proof of the exodus

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Wolpe was the second guy they interview in this movie old sport, so as to get his full perspective, and not just some old cogers take on what was said.

what else you got?

What do you mean, "what else you got?"

They've explained the numerous problems with the entire archaeological record, and with the narrative itself, that this new version "alternate timeline of the Exodus" presents. They've explained that the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field, many of them Israelis who would have every reason to want to confirm the Exodus and Conquest actually occurred (since that's partially the basis for the claim of the modern nation upon that land), is that no such thing as described in the mythology actually happened. They've explained that it doesn't fit with the pharaohs listed in the story, nor does the record of the pharaohs contain any examples of that fit the narrative. 

Briefly, a guy named Woods contended that he had discovered evidence that Jericho was destroyed near to the date the Exodus must have happened in order to fit the timeline correctly, but it was based on a piece of charcoal that was mis-dated due to a calibration error at the British Museum, which was later fixed and a proper date applied that was over 150 years earlier, at a time when the Exodus could not have happened. Others (primarily Aardsma, Rohl, and Stewart) have tried to advance the "missing millennium" hypothesis and other sorts of "push the timeline back" ideas to account for this, but were soundly shot down by fellow experts in the field, not only on archaeological grounds (such as when you examine other cities mentioned in the story which did not exist anywhere near the older timeline proposed) but also because of the above-mentioned conflicts with that hypothesis... yet apologists continue to push these ideas as the basis of an entirely new mythology about the Exodus.

Face it, the story was made up, post hoc, to give a unifying Origin Story and identity to the people who had been taken by the Babylonians, resulting in new "ancient" texts cobbled together out of other stories... the "scars" from the editing are plainly visible to modern scholarship. The simple fact is that we have no evidence for anyone following the "Abrahamic covenant" (based on lack of pig bones in refuse pits at dig sites, one of the ways they identify Israeli settlements among the Canaanites) prior to 1200 BCE, and most experts consider the Israelites to have been one of a number of nomadic tribes (what the Amarna Stele calls "Apiru", or wanderers) in the Canaan hills, who eventually called themselves the Isra-el (means "triumphs/prevails with God") who settled into more-permanent habitation and gained power in the vacuum briefly created by the arrival of the Pelasgians (Sea Peoples) and the attrition wars between Egypt (who then owned Canaan) and the Hittites to the north. According to Silberman, "Thus, the founding fathers of the Israelite nation can now be seen as scattered groups of pastoralists living in small family groups and grazing their flocks on hilltops and isolated valleys in the hill country of Canaan." The whole concept of an Exodus and Conquest were made up later, as nation-building propaganda by the priests, centuries after the stories were supposed to have occurred-- we know this because they mention cities that were not even extant at the time, but were well-settled by the time of the Babylonian Exile.

As Yoda might say: More research, and not just from those who pre-agree with the conclusions you seek, I would recommend.