cladking Wrote:

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

No they answered based on the evidence and theories based on that evidence.
>
> 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;

Nope the evidence doesn't disappeared - although you certainly said enough times that you wished it would - as a matter of fact you seemed to have once believed if you said something didn't exist that it would disappear from the physical world.....fortunately that never happens.

>Most
> alternative theorists are NOT rejecting the facts
> or logic; they are rejecting the current
> interpretation.

Tell us what facts GH is using to reject the current theories? You do know right what he said about evidence?

""“My speculation, which I will not attempt to prove here or to support with evidence but merely present for consideration, is that the advanced civilization I see evolving in North America during the Ice Age had transcended leverage and mechanical advantage and learned to manipulate matter and energy by deploying powers of consciousness that we have not yet begun to tap.”" Graham Hancock, America Before The Pseudoarchaeology of America Before: A Review - Carl Feagans

Moreover this is what you say: BUT DO NOT DO: Cladking: Only evidence, logic, experience, and experiment can lead to true knowledge. Everything else is a belief (opinion). [grahamhancock.com]

If archaeologists actually
> resorted to facts they'd soon discover there are
> in some cases no facts at all to support the
> interpretation.

Well when we resort to facts about your claims your ideas are falsified but you refuse to acknowledge it - is what you doing the fringe methodology? Yes. You do not resort to facts.

This is not merely illogical but
> it is wholly unevidenced.

Like most if not all of your claims.

> Archaeology simply assumes ancient people were
> just like us.

Biologically they were, cultural they had many similarities - despite your telling us your made up and un-evidenced fantasies

I believe this assumption is in
> error.

BUT you've only ever stated this you never published your research and data that supports this - and still refuse over and over again to do so - you stating an opinion isn't effective, and have been told that hundreds of times but still continuing pretending your beliefs and opinions are facts - they still aren't.

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

As long as those free thinkers believe what he tells them with supporting evidence - more like a cult
>
> 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.

Actually HE should list out his arguments point by point. He doesn't since its based on opinion.

That's nice - then take the evidence and come up with a theory that does? You couldn't and neither could HG so he makes stuff up and gives the finger to the idea he should support an idea with evidence - his opinion is good enough...lol

We've done that with you and you simply ignore it - as he does - you still haven't been brave enough to accept the results of the Shu Experiment - so you have zero credibility in pretending to be a paragon of virtue.