Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Stating the truth is not a personal attack. You
> might want to look up the word :
> ultracrepidarian

Stating someone is a racist ands is supplying fodder for nazis is a personal attack and it is unbecoming for science.

> So opinions huh, yeah we know that, I read his
> earlier books - he just talks about his feelings
> and opinions and avoids evidence.

I've heard tell some of his earlier work was way off the mark. So was mine. So was Science. We believe science is still way off the mark and they won't defend themselves.

> 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.

I have stated it numerous times and each time you ignore it in its entirety and its every part. Reciting archaeological beliefs is not a rebuttal. Everyone already knows what these beliefs are but we do not share them.

> But where is this EVIDENCE?

Again, evidence has meaning only in terms of the paradigm. When anyone cites evidence for a different interpretation it is not seen except in light of the existing paradigm or it is dismissed as irrelevant. Physical evidence and lack of it are never irrelevant.

> 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.

This is not strictly true. The new explanation merely needs to be better supported than the old one. It only needs to make more predictions or create fewer anomalies. It only needs to better answer the questions, logic, and evidence. it does not need Peer support or to build on the existing paradigm because the existing paradigm is apparently in error.

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

You should know by now I don't agree with anyone about anything. Where I lack knowledge I simply use expert opinion provisionally. So I don't normally read Hancock or any Egyptologist other than to skim the work for facts and evidence. Opinion, even my opinion, has no value. But insight, genius, facts, etc can come from almost anyone at all. These are what I'm looking for whether I'm reading Budge or Breasted, or Graham Hancock. I don't care about opinion. Science doesn't care about opinion. Reality itself is unswayed by any opinion whatsoever.

I like simplicity and elegance in trying to conceptualize the infinitely complex nature of reality. I like theories that explain a lot. Most people who don't agree with doctrine have the same oir similar motivation.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.