<HTML>I think the problem the alternative camp has is that orthodox academia won't roll-over and change its views on the basis of GH and RBs 'evidence'; as you point out, when presented with <b>real</b> evidence, academics aren't so egotistical and self-serving as to insist on their pet theories being retained.
Contrast this with the alternative authors - any challenge to their hypotheses is met with scorn, or insistence that the non-believers are closed-minded, nitpicking, conspiratorial...
Theories of Atlantis, single origins, hyperdiffusionism etc have been around for the past 100 years - new 'alternative' authors put a new spin on it, but basically its the same old stuff - talk about refusal to change one's hypothesis in the face of new evidence!
JoeRoyle</HTML>
