<HTML>Jim-
> Again for my purposes, being speculative and talking about it
> with friends to ME is just as valid as the scientific method
> you may rely on. IOW, we don't tell you you can't speculate
> or we don't tell you how you ought to go about science. For
> our purposes, it is just as valid. Fine, call us fools or
> idiots; we don't care.
Who's calling you idiots? Speculate all you want. We call can. All I'm saying is it doesn't make it so. If Hancock and his ilk just said "we're speculating wildly among friends and it's all pretty meaningless," there'd be nothing to discuss. But they're not, are they? They're claiming to rewrite history (West's new book, apparently, will be subtitled "The Quest to Rewrite History"). To do that, adhering to protocols of method would help, in my opinion. Or do you think any historical speculation at all is valid?
> A link like this by nature CAN'T be self-evident otherwise it
> would have been brought up before.
My point exactly: you don't have evidence here, you have speculations.
>
> They listed what they believe to be the most important
> intellectual traits. My personal favorite was in there:
> fuzzy/adaptive thinking - i.e. tying together SEEMINGLY
> unrelated topics which is where the great breakthroughs come.
Yes, within the protocols of science. This is not a blank cheque to claim validity for whatever you think sounds interesting
>
> >
> > > I'm sure Tompkins/Steccini is just impressing on a
> Wow. How's about taking Tompkins book and finding any other
> geometrical structure in the world upon which the same
> "coincidences" can apply.
I bet you could do it, with enough time and patience, for the World Trace Centre or Wrigley Field.
>
> BTW, Freemasonry is strongly based on certain platonic
> numbers. Thus, the 55 WAS the intent of the original
> builders. Ever notice the upside-down 5-pointed star?
Really? Have you read Gardner's analysis?
>
> >
> > Where are the houses, the burials, the hatpins of the LC'ers?
>
>
> Again, a small group of nomadic peoples (lost civilization or
> aliens - take your pick) would NOT leave behind anything of
> substance since there isn't a major presence/length of time
> at the sites.
"Small group of nomadic peoples"? Wasn't the LC supposed to be a tremendously sophisticated, global culture with advanced astronomic and geophysic knowledge, navigation skills, and so on? Not quite a small group of Bedouin.
Garrett</HTML>
