Because we find signs in Linear B doesn't automatically mean the two scripts are related. If you take a look at the three scripts below (Old Turkic, Runic and Celtiberian) you see that there is a lot of similar symbols that are completely unrelated:
There is inevitably going to be some similarity between unrelated scripts, especially if you have only a fairly small inventory of relatively simple signs.
Sorry but the Minoans were not Greeks. They spoke an unrelated, as of yet undeciphered language. Also, with the Greco-Aryan hypothesis you're making a lot of conjectures and take them as absolute truth: this hypothesis assumes assumes a common ancestry of Greek and the Indo-Iranic languages (as well as Armenian, which is usually included), but it's absolutely not sensible to place this homeland in Anatolia, because we have another branch of the Indo-European languages in Anatolia, the Anatolian language family (including Hittite and Luwian), which is generally considered the most divergent path of Indo-European languages. There is also the issue that Greek is in many ways closer with the Italic and Celtic languages than it is with Indo-Iranic. Also, by the time the Ugaritic alphabet is invented, the Greek language (written in Linear B) is already attested.
Greek does not come from Phoenician. The Greek alphabet comes from the Phoenician alphabet. And as I said before, it's not based only on archaeological evidence. There's also the Greek names for the letters, the order of the letters, and also the Greek gematria system, which would make no sense if there was no relationship with the Phoenician alphabet.
I don't understand what you are trying to say there. What I understand is that you are completely opposed to the idea that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician alphabet, for reasons I do not understand.