Rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bauval and Hancock, as far as I can tell, never
> make specific predictions about where to dig or
> what you'll find when you dig in a specific area.
> That is after all a form of fortune telling which
> as far as I can tell they disavow.


Actually, what they DO is more reminiscent of bad fortune-telling. "Sometime in the future you will meet someone and have a very strong emotional reaction". You could meet the love of your life... or wretch at somebody's bad body odor.

As an example of this kind of third-rate fortune-telling by Hancock and Bauval, I offer your next paragraph....


> Since I've
> just reread "The Orion Mystery" and I'm reading
> "Underworld" I have to say that B and H's basic
> theory, that an advanced civilization existed in
> the past cannot be simply dismissed out of hand
> because it doesn't fit the "standard theory" of
> history of progressive and cumulative advances.


How blazingly silly. That's like advancing a theory that somewhere there will be a temple or monument discovered that is heretofore unknown. Well, since the entire WORLD is the backdrop, and there's 20,000 years of human pre-history from which to cull, it's highly LIKELY there's a temple or monument out there that has yet to be found.

Saying "human civilization is older than thought" or was "more advanced than we currently think" is just a bit of wishful fortune-telling, awaiting the hard work done by real archaeologists, so they can pirate the find (exactly as Barry has done here).

Also, we need to seriously look at their methodology for drawing their conclusions. They start with the conclusion, and then sift the dirt of the entire planet to piece together any coincidences that might give it the appearance of validity. They don't start with evidence and then try to explain it... that would require real work, and wouldn't even begin to support their highly romantic (and completely bogus) "theories".






> Let's not forget that all around the world
> indigenous people sit on top of the remnants of
> previous monuments that they're ancestors made but
> are clueless as to how they were built or who
> built them.


Name four.

thanks.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.