We are not even close to deciding who's theory is right. No one yet HAS a complete theory. You were right that it is difficult to separate stories of the near past, with stories from the long past. What is more, it is difficult to separate stories by scale. We have Talbott making a case that a golden age has to do with alignments of planets, and Saturn being a sun. People like Cruttenden say a golden age has to do with cycles of our sun and another star. "Hamlet's Mill" is all about ages being determined by where we are in our precessional cycle. We even have those like Jenkins, saying that ages have something to do with our solar system's alignment to the galactic plane.
So, who is right? NO ONE , until they realize that in an electric universe, these cycles are in no way independent.

Talbott is right about the polar alignment of planets, but will continue to struggle with finding a mechanism to produce this alignment, if he does not consider forces from OUTSIDE our solar system.
Cruttenden correctly associates the precessional cycle with our position relative to another star, but thinks both are due to gravitational forces.
Whether or not you agree, know this:
You can not have charged stars or planets moving through magnetic fields without it affecting their precession.
You can not have a solar system spiraling through z-pinch, without disrupting the orbits of it's planets.
You can not have stars travelling on Birkeland currents through the galaxy, and say they are immune from our orientaion in that field.

No theory will be right if it attempts to explain all the behavior on one scale alone. [link to www.thunderbolts.info]