I know you are thinking for yourself. What I meant is that I think Hancock provides a lot of theories that makes sense. Makes sense exactly to what I think. It is like somebody confirming what you already think.
I believe sometimes a person who study a specific subject get influenced by the scholars. Sometimes a person from outside see things more clearly. I don’t think that is a rule. But sometimes irbid the case. I think the sine of Egyptology. I think they are pressed by Zahi Hawassto fit his agenda that is a extremely orthodox Egyptology.
I think Zahi Hawass use his position to manage things to fit into his beliefs of how Egypt was in the past. I don’t believe Egyptology.

[youtu.be]

Cintia Panizza
———————————



Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cintia Panizza Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Hermione Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> ...
>
> > > How can it "make sense" to describe objects
> as
> > > manmade when they are in fact geological
> > > artefacts?
> >
> >
> > Yes, in fact that India occurrence it is very
> > weird. Hancock doesn’t have a geology degree.
> > But agreeing with some person work is it not
> think
> > for yourself?
>
> I am thinking for myself.
>
> I'm not a geologist. I don't rely on my own
> opinion on such questions: there wouldn't be any
> point.
>
> When discussing geological artefacts, I ask myself
> whether it is safer to rely on the opinion of
> someone who ISN'T a geology graduate rather than
> the opinion of someone who IS a geology graduate
> (or even, as in this case, a teacher of geology in
> a university).

"Happiness is only real when shared."
Christopher McCandless