It was presumptuous but hardly unreasonable. Bottom line is Ethan nailed the data for what it was, bogus. That was a clear demonstration of his expertise. I still want to know why you didn't see that the data was obviously bogus? How about the judgement shown in posting that bogus data?
And I could win the lotto and then claim I know how to win it every week. Doesn't mean I knew what to do to win. Completely misreading a graph and then claiming to know what was wrong is sheer nonsense, not true.
But keep grasping for straws Scott.