Because narrowing it down to two planets is better than checking 50 of them?
What evidence? How about this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ThjsXsz1N7R-JtSJsXl8w9ir8CrHui7ifHIXKwTCqfI/edit#gid=0
Read please!
I am going to be pretty brutal here...the only physical evidence we have of anything is the first ruins. The only reason we have to think that there are other ruins is because we were told there were. Yes, there no doubt would have been speculation that there were others based upon probability that since there was one site, it would be more probable that there were others than this one being unique. Removing what we have been told through third parties such as Ram, what have we figured out on our own that would have come close to confirming that there were any other sites in the first place?
Edited to add...that narrowing it down to two planets is no more valuable than the original 50 if those are the wrong two planets.
Last edited: