Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not quite correct. They've been studied
> and answered. He didn't like the answers and
> didn't want to read all the material.

Yes! Exactly.

Archaeologists can only study and answer questions and alternative theories in terms of the existing paradigm.

When a new hypothesis rejects the existing paradigm it is no longer legitimate to use the paradigm to address that new argument. They MUST resort to actual facts; those facts that led to the current paradigm/ interpretation. Most alternative theorists are NOT rejecting the facts or logic; they are rejecting the current interpretation. If archaeologists actually resorted to facts they'd soon discover there are in some cases no facts at all to support the interpretation. Much of the interpretations hang on assumptions, old wives tales, and 19th century beliefs. Even things that are taken as givens are simply not true. Most of archaeology devolves from Egyptology and Egyptology believes ancient people invented, discovered, and learned not from experiment or any kind of science but through trial and error. This is not merely illogical but it is wholly unevidenced. But on the basis of such beliefs it's a tiny step to assuming agriculture and cities were invented through trial and error. It's a tiny step to assuming everything is derived from trial and error. Many of these beliefs are at odds with experiment and observation which often precludes ideas like the bee';s waggle dance could be invented a step at a time. Greater complexity is possible over time but not basic and fundamental characteristics.

Archaeology simply assumes ancient people were just like us. I believe this assumption is in error. Archaeologists assume that consciousness is immaterial and that each individual was different, just like us. It assumes People spoke the same kind of language so when we see only 32 different types of words in caves they assume it can't be a language because OUR language would have no utility at all with only 32 words. They assume everything from soup to nuts and then when they learn something new that doesn't disprove their narrative they assume they were right all along and when they find anomalies they are ignored or relegated to the basements of museums.

This all is bad but now it has taken a turn for the worse because rather than address argument they want to shower the arguers with ad hominin.

> It's what HE believes the narrative is. And he
> pushes it to his fans, who then believe knowledge
> is being covered up and he's the champion of the
> free thinkers.

His opponents really should take a point by point refutation of his arguments. This doesn't mean reciting narrative as is always the case. We all know what the narrative is and simply don't agree. For various reasons we see flaws wide enough to float a fleet of UFO's.

Maybe the narrative is a close approximation of reality but it is probably not because it generates so many mysteries, explains so little and creates mountains of anomalies. It is not predictive and all goods science has always made predictions. Even bad science can make some predictions but archaeological and Egyptological theory seem incapable of making even the simplest predictions. Even as they are updated to reflect new evidence they still don't make prediction. Apparently the narrative is wrong. Lashing out at heretics is unseemly and very poor science.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.