Cintia Panizza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So the “comet” is really an awful theory. But is
> so clear that I found disappointing that Graham
> Hancock is so into this theory. I always think his
> theories are so great and now this comet one is
> Sad for a fan. I always believed in something and
> then I read Hancock writing about it and it was a
> perfect match. But now the comet is so foolish.
> What you explained made a lot of sense.
>
If you explore the other ideas in any depth, you will find a lot of flaws. Hancock is a wonderful writer (one of my friends is actually related to him (third cousin). However, he thought his career as a journalist made him the world's best researcher. He's been miffed that academics keep saying "you're not seeing the whole picture -- you're making silly guesses based on not knowing and not understanding the cultures." So when they criticize him, he complains that academics can't (as the expression goes) "think out of the box."
The problem with his statement (academics can't think beyond orthodox ideas) is that you can't get a PhD or even a Masters' if you simply parrot other ideas. You have to come up with something very new and very interesting for your research (as you may know if you got one of those degrees.) And if you have a really new idea (like the continental drift) and can prove it with good evidence (continental drift) then they will throw out old ideas and accept the new one.
But he writes well. And many people love his writing.
I did at one time. I like the way he writes but all his errors and leaps to wrong conclusions just annoy me now.
-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at