Longish thread coming up.
First, Babar's outlook changed from a conqueror to a religious fanatic after his victories in India:
"Meenakshi Jain notes that while Babur had initially based his claims to sovereignty on “grounds of his Timurid heritage
Sawai Jai Singh is one such prominent Rajput.
The cabal comprising of Habib, Thapar, and other rogues had argued that no temple or structure had ever existed beneath the Babri mosque.
They argued that perhaps there were no temples in all of Ayodhya!
The eminent historians argued, without presenting any contrary evidence, that the slab was not from the site of the mosque.
He then claimed that the slab was “from some private collection.”
She asserted in a book venerated by some RW-ers, "India: A Sacred Geography", that there never had been any temple under the Babri mosque. Not directly though.
This is what D Mandal stated, under oath, before the Allahabad High Court.
"I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur’s reign."
"little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century."
"I never acquired knowledge in archaeology."
"I did not get any degree or diploma in archae"
In 2003, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court of Uttar Pradesh ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct the excavations in 2003. The ASI submitted its report in Aug 2005.
But what about artifacts found during the excavations?
Note the time: 11-12th century CE
the discovery: "huge structure"
This massive structure was different from residential structures and provided sufficient evidence of a construction for public use.
In other words, the excavations revealed that Babri Masjid was erected over, and with full knowledge of, a pre-existing structure.