For those who want proof of the exodus

[GrandizerII]

It didn't have to occur at all. And regardless of what some skeptics may say about when the Exodus could have occurred, the fact still remains it has not been established that it did occur. Like I said earlier, it's not enough to just meet pieces of evidence that could fit your theory, you need to make sure your theory is not riddled with various difficulties, not challenged by other pieces of evidence against it, and is not trumped by a better theory.

Fair enough.

However, an ancient text lays out a sequence of six events for which there appears to be archaeological evidence. The common cry is, "Show me the evidence!", and Mahoney has done this in rather convincing fashion.

At this point then, the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic who must now demonstrate why Mahoney, et al. are wrong. IF the theory is "riddled with various difficulties", etc., then why is Mahoney wrong about any of the six events he documented?

Please be specific.

Based on your last paragraph: Let's see...we have a non-king or pharaoh living in a palace in the Land of Goshen inhabited largely by Semites, and this palace has 12 colonnades, 12 tombs found on the grounds, and the one shaped like a pyramid (reserved for VERY important people) has a statue of a man with mushroom shaped haircut (semitic), yellowish-skin (used to depict northerners), a throw-stick (reserved for men of importance) and traces of a multi-colored coat (like the one mentioned in the Bible belonging to Joseph). When the archaeologists discovered this pyramid, they saw that it was not broken into violently but opened carefully, and ALL OF THE BONES WERE REMOVED as one might expect to have occurred if Moses honored Joseph's request to be buried in Canaan. Then, we find a tomb of Joseph in Shechem which indicates that his bones were ultimately moved and interred there centuries after Joseph died.  And all of this is just a coincidence?

All this according to the documentary, but how do we know the documentary's analysis of the statue is accurate? How do we know they didn't omit important facts that would've negated the claims and interpretations they made?

That's what the skeptic has to show. Mahoney, Rolm and others have had THEIR say. Why are they wrong?

May I stress and emphasize Mahoney is just a filmmaker, not an archaeologist? He is not an expert in this field. Just to be clear on this.

And to be clear on another point, my argument isn't that they're wrong. My argument is that they're likely not right. Parsimony, falsifiability, acceptability, not in their favor.