<HTML>Garrett
I think that there are ways in which science fails to respond to new evidence quickly - mostly through the human element :-)
>>readers are presented with a stark choice: accept the un-evidenced “conjectures” and “best guesses” of the alternatives, closing their eyes to what evidence we have in order to do so (see Hancock’s ignoring 30 years of work at Tiwanaku); or rely on the “conjectures” and “best guesses” (aka “hypotheses”) of the people who allow consideration of all the available evidence to guide the shape their (provisional) views.
This is more or less the conclusion that I have reached after my sortie into the world of alternative history (well FOTG mostly). After reading GH's A View From The Trenches and researching some of the topics that he covers, this is a stark choice that I identify with. Disappointing though it is. ~lol~
I don't know much about Tiwanaku in all honesty. I have been reading about the Age of the Sphinx where there is a lively debate around the evidence. But I don't find any evidence that supports an eleventh millenium build by a LC, nor much discussion about it.
>>It seems clear to me which approach is likely to yield the more reliable results.
It's clear to me too.
Thanks
Claire</HTML>
