Who was it that stated just days ago that a consensus doesn't necessarily constitute proof of an argument?
Yes.
A consensus of uninformed people is worthless.

Are you foolish enough to believe that prejudices and pre-conceived ideology do not inform utterances of "experts", sometimes to the point of idiocy?

Yes I am
The "utterances" of professional historians are informed by their research.
Anything not substantiated would be exposed and rubbished by their rivals (peers.)