<HTML>Garrett,
Okay. If you're going to get into that kind of semantics, then I have to agree with you.
However, I also think it is unfair to judge ALL of JAW's arguments because he chose to use the word "belief" rather than "theory" in a TV interview.
I really don't think HE meant what you are semantically arguing. Perhaps the best thing to do is ask him... of course, his answer will be in line with my response, rather than your semantic speculation.
We are in agreement... I'm just not sure if you understand that it is ALL good science, based on different amounts of data. Graham didn't magically wake up one morning and decide there was a Lost Civilization... he got the idea... the theory... the "belief"... from bits and pieces of evidence that he saw all over the world. This was his "data". It is not complete... even he admits that... so his conclusion may be wrong. However, he's not basing his idea on some kind of religious epiphany.
Now, the fact that he may ignore more data that contradicts what he originally thought was "evidence" for the Lost Civilization may be a questionable practice (most recently, his continued contention that the Piri Reis map shows Antarctica, rather than the obvious depiction of the southern tip of South America)... this is where his emotional tie to a theory is clouding his scientific judgment... and I think THAT is a different argument from your semantic one stated above.
Thanks for laying out your point so well. I hope you understand mine.
Anthony</HTML>
