General Discussion

The GPR does not detect bones; it detects the soil, and thus the graves. On its size: "William Shakespeare’s grave was found to be significantly longer than his short stone – extending west towards the head end, making it the same size as, and in line with, the other family graves. (Anne’s grave is also longer than her stone suggests."

On Susanna, it says " there may be foundation to the story of Susanna Shakespeare's grave being disturbed even if it is not possible to conclude whether she was exhumed and subsequently reinterred elsewhere. " Richard Watts was apparently buried close to her, nearly 50 years later. Saying "it is not possible to conclude" is not "theorizing that Susanna was". That attempted sleight of hand by you is just the sort of jiggery-pokery that your OP is pretending to be against. As is your claim of a 'bogus child-size "grave"', complete with scare marks. Or your gut feeling that "Colls is being coy", as if you suddenly don't see him as a scientist, but as someone dropping hints. The birthplace house was extensively renovated in the 1860s; no-one denies that the house was there before that.

You pontificate about "the Shakespeare myth", while distorting what Colls wrote. Beyond your original false claim that the scan showed that Shakespeare wasn't buried there, you're picking nits about tiny details that no one cares about (I'd never heard about poaching deer, or a mulberry tree, for instance. Why would that count as "history"? It's gossip.) What exactly is the "myth", according to you? And how do you claim it has "crumbled"? Are deer, trees and graves really what you think is most important about Shakespeare?

Your OP, frankly, has very little to do with history at all. It's an obsession with small details about the past (which you often distort), and a basic criticism of a few things like Washington Irving's popular writing, not the study of history.