cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans_lune Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > No they answered based on the evidence and
> > theories based on that evidence.
>
> If this were true there would be no need for
> personal attacks.

Stating the truth is not a personal attack. You might want to look up the word :
ultracrepidarian
>
> He keeps mentioning the existence of agriculture.
> He keeps saying we are "the species with amnesia".
> He keeps pointing at the ruins of ancient
> civilizations.

So opinions huh, yeah we know that, I read his earlier books - he just talks about his feelings and opinions and avoids evidence.
>
> The entire world has always been explicable in
> terms of the prevailing paradigm and up until now
> the prevailing paradigm has always been very very
> wrong.

In your opinion. Got any evidence?
>
> This is very weak for underpinning a theory but in
> point of fact most theories contain some weak
> components.

Its all he's got. Opinion - just like you tried to do - and failed.
>
> And here it is again!!!! Despite my repeated
> delineation of the specific differences between
> our species and the evidence to support it you
> merely repeat what you believe. What you or Peers
> believe is not evidence, it is interpretation of
> what is known.

Nope you have not - link to your research and data that supports this? You have NEVER put this claim into a coherent argument - its just endless repeats of the same claims without evidence. You say you have it. Okay post the link.

> Let me try one more time.
>
All you have
> left to cite is evidence and logic of why we
> should see that evidence in a new way.

But where is this EVIDENCE?

If he says
> "pyramids were not tombs" exactly what recognized
> authority can he cite? All he can do is keep
> pointing out all the authorities and you are
> wrong.

Lots of people say that - what he needs is the evidence to support whatever he thinks it is. Not an opinion. Like Evidences it was a cold fusion reactor or whatever.

> No, you do exactly as you claim Hancock does,
> handwave all the evidence.

You don't have evidence to hand wave away all you have our your opinions - we have been asking YOU for evidence for 17 years - all we get is claims and opinions. When we did an experiment you set up and demanded we do we did so and it showed you were wrong. So, what did you do? Accept it? Nope you ran away from that evidence. I mean he clearly states in his books that he doesn't even attempt to use evidence....I mean what more do you need? He does opinions just like you.

We know you did that and your childish attempts to pretend it never happens add nothing to your already non-existent credibility.

Hancock
> reinterprets evidence and as I said I'm not very
> familiar with his work and certainly haven't
> studied it.

Well may I recommend you go read his material before you start telling us how right he is..................sheesh.