No, you're making up reasons for why they are not reliable because they do not facilitate your argument.
I am? Can you cite one of those reasons? As far as I can tell I simply asserted it it's obvious enough. We can't tell if the timestamps are reliable or not. That's part of the purpose of having the headline in the genesis block. For all any of us know someone forked and replaced the first 50 blocks, or any of a zillion other things. Who knows. You've totally missed the point, but I can't figure out why. We don't know who created blocks past the first one or two. I suggested ignoring them because it gets us squarely in the realm of what we know for sure... But don't if you like. if it suits your particular obsessions. There weren't any conclusions being drawn from it.
And you've spent a lot of time arguing that CPUs were so unbelievably slow "back in the day", even using anecdotal arguments that are likely unprovable to lend weight to your claims.
And they were, compared to current software on current hardware Sergio spent a lot of time here arguing about numbers like 7.5MH/s on a single desktop. It's _laughable_.