Seriously, have you not read any of the thread? You are entitled to your opinion, but your just restating something that has been said many times. OK, we get it, lots of people who aren't what would generally be considered amazing athletes have run a 5-minute mile or thereabouts.
Look, maybe you can go out and find a 9 year-old undernourished girl and discover that she runs a 5:00 mile with no training, and that won't change the fact that Usain Bolt can't do it.
The point is, you can't keep using the "transitive property" of athletic talent to argue that Bolt can run sub-5 ("he's amazing at 100/200, pretty good at 400, anybody that runs a 45 second 400 can jog a sub-2 800, anybody that can run sub-2:00 for 800 can easily break 5:00 in the mile, etc). By that logic, he should be able to run a half-decent ultra, too. And you can't use the "I was a 98-lb weakling who ran a 4:40 mile, therefore studly Usain can easily beat that". These lines of reasoning are tempting at first glance, but are quickly crushed by the cold hard facts.
All posters, henceforth, PLEASE DO NOT USE EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING 2 FALLACIES:
The "A 5-Minute Mile is Really Slow compared to 9.58 100m" fallacy, which posits that for somebody who can run an incredible sprint time, a sub-5 mile is a given because it is so much more common. A sub-3 marathon is probably even less impressive than a sub-5 mile, but Bolt would probably need several days for a marathon.
The "Wimpy 13-Year-Old Boy" fallacy, which states that some young, underdeveloped weakling was able to run Time X for the mile, and therefore the world's fastest sprinter could easily beat Time X.