Quote - "There may be several opinions but every with good arguments and then it have to be excepted that it can't be prooven completely. To be understood right that's not like the argument that earth exists only 6000 year.
That's a thing of mixing religion and science...."

Aye, both science and religion as well as culture tend to drive modern man's views of what life way back 'when' may have been where there are not but 'clues' and no solid evidence. Even th' treasured paintings and drawings that some historians hold as basis for their "solid facts" are often found to be not but an artist's "interpretation" and not really something he even saw or drew for facts that he well knew. Example: if an artist of period was painting with intent to sell to higher class (which obviously he would as only the higher class had money) then he would 'dress it up' in order to 'appeal' to the higher class; in the case of a 'pirate painting', if indeed the pirates he was painting wore beards but the painting was intended for a palace of well reknown where such personal grooming would be frowned up then he would paint the rouges clean shaven. In case of religion and culture; if he intended his painting for a family of strong values (lets say white English Christians) then he may leave out several of the actual rouges such as blacks and and any so-called 'heathen' symbols that any may have actually worn (remember that in the 1600s and 1700s the English loathed Irish and Germans and call us...'er, them UnGodly heathens).

As I listen t' some of these hard core historians argue over what was 'common' and what was 'not common' I often find that the one doing the argument is 'assuming' that the pirates of topic are of their own favored group, often assuming it is an English group of pirates. True that information discovered finds that even on a so-called "democrate pirate ship" of multi-cultured pirates, there was a social order; pirate ships known to take on black slaves as crewmembers from a captured slave ship where seldom truely treated as "equals" on a predominatly English crewed priate ship. But of course, this information is only from the few crews that were 'captured alive'; based upon the knowledge known in whole such as ship's Codes, the whole concept of Democracy (which in the era was still alien and shocked England, France, as well as Spain that men would act in such a way) would stand that some crews may have taken on a more pure 'democratic' or 'everyone onboard truely is Equal' approach.

Quote - "But for example if boot's are piratelike or not is only a thing of given resources and their interpretation and, maybe, without new unfound ressources will never coming to the one real and true solution ... if this is really existing"

Aye again, even th' boot on Whydah has historians making the statement "just because a boot was found on a ship known to have been captured and sailed by pirates does not prove they actually Wore them for the ship previously was a slave ship and was ocupied by other 'passangers' of gentelmen and ladies of renoun. Therefore the single boot found may have belonged to one of them and never have actually had a 'pirate's' foot placed inside"

As well as the argument that arouse for the information that "entire shelves of boots" where discovered in the escavation at Tortuga, it was argued "Tortuga was owned and controled by different countries as different times, also the boots may have only been made for those living on the island, not for the sea goers that came and went from port." Arguing that they were for the horse riders among the island inhabitants and that there is still no "proof" that any pirate ever set sail with a pair on he's foot.
Even the few paintings of the period that do show pirates with boots have been dismissed by hard cores that they were simply "artist's interpretations and glamorizations". It can get quite comical when listening to them argur over details in a painting; here you have an actual painting or drawing from someone who lived in 1650, and now you have a 'hard core' demanding that certain tiny details are fiction and figments of the artist's imagination and another saying "if an artist of the era was able to imagine it then how can you say he had not actually seen it?" - yet neither can produce absolute PROOF to back up their opinion of what they are looking at (not unless one can produce a printed document of the same era by someone who either backs up or dismisses the artist's work).

Quote - "Klaus Störtebecker"

Aye, I know the story o' Captain Klaus Störtebecker well, I be half German meself now (Irish on me mum's side).
Ture, legend is hard t' dismiss with the masses....however, on the side of legend, one also has to remind themself that not all what is now was then. Opium, strong ale, and other influances could indeed change what simple 'science' tells us could not be. Could a man who was seriously dopped up on Opium, wine, ale, and Lord knows what else actually pull off such a feat? Ok, perhaps he did not actaully walk past 17 men total (some say Blackbeard's headless body swam around the ship 7 times, others say just 3 times) but could his headless body have managed just a few staggaring steps, say enough to get past one or two men? If so, then from that could easily arise the various versions of the legend as they are told today. And yes, you would still have the modern day scientist claiming "That is impossible because....reproduce it or I refuse to believe it...show me a video or it did not happen...."
On the side of Blackbeard, while I me self do not believe in the story of his body swiming around the ship, but to take from the accepted facts surrounding his death and use them to lend support to Klaus Störtebecker's; how did Blackbeard manage to continue to fight with so many pistol shots and sword wounds? Why did he not fall long before he actually did?
Again, most likely (as expalined by the 'hard cores' and 'scientists') due to strong rum and opium. (remember, liquer back then was even more strong then the strongest brewed today, and NO country had 'regulations' as to how strong it could be. Read up on how Rum got it's name)

 
Quote - "Three cheers to all that cock-and-bull stories ..."

Aye, three cheers indeed! Tis for thus reason I call a few Jack Sparrow impersonators me 'friend' while some of those 'hard cores' I refer to hate them with a passion and constantly rag on them and wish them away, even try to ban them from faire and festivals. What they do not stop and recognize is that Disney's Jack Sparrow is what breathed new life into the very thing they make a living at, Jack is what has made them much coin in recent years where the pot was starting to run rather dry. If it where not for the flashy, bucket boot clad, drunken wandering addlepates such as Jack Sparrow then he's own wallet would be much thiner today and the gates as well as calander of "Priate Fests" would be rather sparse and no where near rivaling that of "Ren Faire" (but then, even the Ren Faire ciruits have this same battle going on behind stage that many of the public are not even aware of...me own younger sibling was once a SCA member but said he got fed up with the bickering and lost interest)

As matter o' fact, this whole topic I could carry on into a more recent battle that has begun in the reenactor's guild of pirates; Sword Play
There is a rather vicious battle going on right now between Stage Actors and Reality Players
For some reason they just can not understand how they each compliment one another....so the battle continues...but that is not 'art related' so I will refrain from conversing in that direction in this port.