C Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't have the book, but the 1975 Time article,
> mentioned it as "a significant clue" which is why
> I thought the issue should be cleared up.


I'm not sure why they read it that way .... its certainly not the way its represented in the book.... the significant clues were supposed to the the Inca myths. Almost on every page Woodman repeats .... "according to Inca legends" if you see Donald's post he also cites the Inca legends and myths as being the "context" of the book..... the Brazilian balloonist was an interesting sidenote.... but 1975 was two years before the publication of the book .. maybe Woodman represented it one way to the interviewer from Time and another way in his book ~shrugs~


> Its interesting how an important international
> weekly magazine reported the story, and what
> evidence was thought significant enough to
> mention.

Did you ever see my billard ball quote regarding reporters quoting Kent Weeks when he re-discovered KV5?


> Now it turns out, a rather dubious idea was used
> to debunk another even more dubious idea - can't
> beat real life for soap opera!

Yes... I ran across an old SI article that did that and I was appalled! However I think archaeologists... especially Andeanist ... have always said the the Nasca balloon idea was bunk.

Kat

Ma'at Moderator

Founder and Director of The Hall of Ma'at

Contributing author to Archaeological Fantasies:
How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public
"If you panic, you're lost" -- W. T. 'Watertight' Southard