I would propose that you, as well as Gane, Davidson etc. are inadvertently accepting a set of faulty premises that give people like Andre, Ford etc. an underserved advantage.
You are allowing them to frame the debate as follows: if while looking at the textual evidence in Dan. 8 the Epiphanes interpretation seems more plausible than the Rome interpretation, the sensible thing to do is to go with the Epiphanes interpretation.
That line of reasoning is fallacious and we should not be its enablers by engaging with it. Here is why it is flawed:
Say you come to my house, pick up a book off the shelf that you’ve never seen before and read one random paragraph. Based on your reading you tell me that there’s a 95% probability the paragraph is referring to X, but there’s a 5% chance it might be referring to Y. I however tell you that I’ve actually read the entire book and Y is the correct meaning.
The Adventist position is that it is impossible to decipher the correct interpretation of Dan. 8 by looking at the textual evidence in chapter 8 alone. There is an entire book of Daniel which is part of an entire Bible. How Dan. 8 is understood depends entirely on how the rest of Daniel and the Bible are understood and that’s where the real debate is. This methodology of segmentation that Andre et al use has its roots in either naturalistic or fundamentalist presuppositions regarding the nature of Scripture that no sound minded Christians should take seriously.
The majority of commenters here unfortunately don’t have the training to understand how theology works or they have a very flawed picture of what Adventist theology is all about. Andre, Ford and his wife however really ought to know better. I personally would be embarrassed to publish or endorse such arguments.