I do wish people would stop citing Occam as if it was some hard law of physics. It's just a philosophical proposition that actually refers to prefering solutions that rely on fewer assumptions, although it is commonly cited to mean "the explanation with the lowest complexity is more likely to be correct".

But even under that interpretation, if Occam's razor was a hard rule of the universe then we would have no relativity, no quantum mechanics and no women...

PDR

The gear on the YF-23 far forward? Yes. But not forward of the entire wing. To keep the nose gear on the ground and the tail from dragging in such a design, the CG would have to be forward of the main gear and hence forward of the entire wing. That's a non flyable condition. Further, since the wing and fuel it contains and the engines are the most dense parts of the plane, to move the CG forward of the wing with aft mounted engines means adding a massive ballast weight in the nose. That's nonsense.

As an example, look at any Rutan design with no tail surfaces and a canard. If it has a nose gear, the main gear are under the wing. If it has main gear forward of the wing, it has no nose gear and is a tail dragger.

Perhaps they have read this document

Nobody in this thread has done that.