Very weird you and your compatriots express that,while maintaning that Albanians were Illyrians once living in entire Illyricum that's almost all Yugoslavia, let alone Pelasgians and ancient Macedonians.Sorry that i am not adherent to that theory either,pure phantasmagoria.
This distortion of reality is not correct. The opinion of Albanians about their ethnogenesis, connections with Illyrians and problems like this has been explained by Albanian and international scholars. Speaking about Albanians, you have to take in consideration this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_of_Albania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_of_Albanological_Studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Tirana
and other important insitutes. The opinion of Albanians, of course is not represented by some bloggers, members of internet forums, let alone some serbs who use Albanian nickname in forums(we had the visit of a couple of them here).
It is accepted by the scientific community that the Albanians are a paleo-Balkan populations, in linguistic and genetic terms. From all the ancient populations who once lived in Balcan peninsula, ancient greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, ancient macedonians, etc, only two survived, Albanians and Vlachs. Albanians, from the majority of scientific community are seen as descendants of Illyrians, meanwhile about the vlachs there are many theories, but we are not sure if they are connected with today Romanians or not, etc. From all the ancient languages of this Peninsula only Albanian survived. For this reason, exist many theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').[5] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
Definitions from scientific organizations
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[14]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[13]
Many theories become obsolete and proven unfounded, new theories arise. This is how roll the world and of course the science. I have explained more than once in this forum that the opinion of modern Albanian scholars that there is no prove of connection between Albanian language and the language spoken from Pelasgian population. We don`t know nothing about this populations. If you consider as a credible source of your information, people without an academic background, without a name but just nicknames, this is your problem, not ours.
Very pitty that you will not hear that,also i do not suggest any spread from south to north or opposite.I am against flood "great migration" which is very visible above all in our genetics,archeology is different issue.That's from my thread perhaps 6th and 7th century that is.The similarities of the languages to a degree were noted by linguists not by me.Also this Thracian-Macedonian connection was brought by your compatriots.
I always point to similarities,but the thing that i don't agree with nationalistic propaganda is rather different.
Except theories also exist pseudo-theories. And this part of your post is an typical pseudo-theory. And this is not product of some sick minds. NO. This is official:
Just for curiosity, why you are so obssesed with Alexander III and Philip II? Their names suggest that were other Alexander and Philip, Kings of Macedonia. Let me help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argead_dynasty#Dynasty
Would be nice if for example you name a square Archelaus II or Amyntas III.