<HTML>I've heard of that Jaymes book. It does seem a little over-the-top, though, doesn't it? On the surface, I mean? What would psychologists and others say to the notion that ancient people thought in ways fundamentally and radically different to us? Doesn't the physical record sort of indicate otherwise (I mean, they're using reason to figure stuff out, learning from mistakes, and so on)? However, this is <i>way</i> outside my area of expertise.
The thing about Hancock's wondrous construct is the massive contradiction inherent in its newest manifestation. He used all these physical "vestiges" to established the LC idea in FOG and HM. Once established, it is suddenly divested of all physical vestiges to insulate it from further testing. So we have people with a spiritual base, no cities, no settlements, no physical remains at all (not even a hairpin) telling later cultures how to build pyramids and where to build them, how to build stone cities, how to carve sphinxes and doing all the things the LC spiritualists have, apparenlty, no experience or knowledge of at all.
Seems rather a stretch, no?
Garrett</HTML>
