He concluded that in the end, it would not be enough merely to plant doubts about Will, since the number of references to Shakespeare from his own time could only be accounted for by a playwright of that name unless the playwright [such as de Vere] used Shakespeare as a nom de plume, for which there is zero evidence. And although Shakespeare’s skeptics note that there are no manuscripts, receipts, diaries or letters from him, they would
"neglect to mention that we have none of these for Marlowe, either."
Shermer thus concluded: →Reasonable Doubt would not be enough to dethrone the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, and to date, no overwhelming case has been made for any other author. (click →1, →2) He added...
"... in contrast, hundreds of examples of historical and literary consilience have been compiled by Purchase College theatre professor and playwright Scott McCrea in his aptly titled book →"The Case for Shakespeare" (Praeger, 2008), which demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that,(...), Shakespeare was not just a man but the man..."
Shermers viewpoint clearly shows that the Shakespeare Authorship Dilemma incessantly propagates itself through an (unrecognizable) paradox. There is by no means zero but compelling evidence, that the authorname "Shake-speare" must have been a nom de plume. Without the insights of that starting point the unique, "bizarre" authorship debate would never have arisen. But by accepting that the ingenious author (whoever he was) had to conceal name and identity and write behind the camouflage of an outlandish amount of pseudonyms (Shakespeare included) you apparently start to contradict yourself and your statements, which yet might be true.
This is a unsurmountable paradox, why essential facts (like manuscripts, letters, diaries, etc.) for so →many contemporous authors*1) next to Shakespeare/alias Marlowe could never be discovered: this was not the cause of the authorship problem but (exactly the opposite) their consequence.
*1) out of " →Der wahre Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe"